1.  The applicant requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  He states that he was only 18 years old and immature.  He could not handle military life because of his age.  His counsel contends that the applicant was only 17 years of age when he entered the service.  He received non-judicial punishment for a one-day period of AWOL and two counseling statements regarding his performance.  He requests the Board’s careful and compassionate review of the applicant’s request.

2.  The applicant’s military records show he was born on 1 March 1963.  He completed 9 years of formal education.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on        5 February 1981 for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).  He was assigned to C Battery, 2d Battalion 92d Field Artillery, Germany on 28 May 1981.

3.  On 22 July 1981, the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-2.

4.  On 19 August 1981, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 - 18 August 1981 (less than 24 hours).

5.  On 22 September 1981, the battery commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, expeditious discharge.  The commander cited his immature attitude that hindered his ability to function as a soldier and his continual problems adjusting to military discipline and standards of conduct.  The commander included two counseling statements citing the same.  The commander recommended he be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

6.  The applicant acknowledged the separation action, voluntarily consented to his discharge and did not submit statements in his own behalf.

7.  On 23 September 1981, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed he be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.

8.  On 2 October 1981, he was discharged with a character of service of “under honorable conditions” (a general discharge) in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5.  He had completed 7 months and 28 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent paragraph in Chapter 5 provides that members who have completed at least 6 months but not more than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged.  It provides for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before board or punitive action becomes necessary.  No member will be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consents to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade and general aptitude.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  No member will be given a general discharge by the discharge authority unless it was recommended by the commander initiating the recommendation for discharge.  In cases in which the discharge authority disagrees with the recommendation for an honorable discharge, the case will be returned to the initiating commander with comment to that effect.  The initiating commander may then either initiate new proceedings or take other appropriate action.

CONCLUSIONS: 

1.  Although the battery commander cited the applicant’s “continual” problems with adjusting to military discipline and standards of behavior, he advanced the applicant to the next higher pay grade two months after being assigned to the unit and just two months before initiating the separation action.

2.  The battery commander recommended the applicant receive an honorable discharge.  The discharge authority directed he receive a general discharge and there is no evidence in the records that he referred the case back to the initiating commander as required by regulation.

3.  In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:  

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was given an honorable discharge from the Army on 2 October 1981, under the provisions of Chapter      5-31H(1), Army Regulation 635-200, for Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) Failure to Maintain Acceptable Standards for Retention.

2.  That the individual concerned be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 2 October 1981, denoting an honorable discharge in lieu of the general discharge now held by him.

3.  That the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                                               
					 	CHAIRPERSON