MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             6 May 1998                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC97-10453

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  The following members, a quorum, were present:


Analyst

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has struggled through life and has been out of the Army for quite awhile and would like consideration of his case and an upgrade of his discharge.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 3 January 1974 the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Ord, California and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Polk, Louisiana.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded MOS 11B (Infantryman) and assigned to Hawaii for his first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record documents no individual acts of valor, achievement or service warranting special recognition, and indicates the applicant never advanced beyond the rank of private first class/E-3.  However there is an extensive record of disciplinary infractions which includes the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on five separate occasions. 

On 12 June 1975 the applicant accepted an NJP for willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment for this offense was reduction to private/E-1(suspended); 14 days of extra duty; and 7 days restriction.  On 17 July 1975 the suspended portion of the punishment pertaining to the applicant’s reduction to private/E-1 was vacated and ordered duly executed.

On 18 December 1975 the applicant accepted his second NJP for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty.  The punishment included forfeiture of $93.00 (suspended) and 7 days of extra duty and restriction.

On 19 April 1976 the applicant again accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer.  His punishment for this offense was 14 days of extra duty.

On 29 June 1976 the applicant accepted another NJP for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty and falsifying a sick slip.  The punishment for these infractions included reduction to private/E-2; forfeiture of $50.00; and 7 days of extra duty and restriction.


On 30 September 1976 the applicant accepted his last NJP for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty and was punished with a forfeiture of $25.00.

The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) which the applicant authenticated.  The reason and authority for discharge contained on the DD Form 214 is paragraph 5-37, AR 635-200, with a separation program designator (SPD) code of JGH.  

The DD Form 214 also documents that the applicant was discharged on 
30 November 1976 after completing 2 years, 10 months, and 28 days of active military service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedure for separating members under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The EDP provided for the separation of soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the Board did note that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed government regularity in preparation of the document. 

2.  The Board examined the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant's record justified the chain of command’s decision to process him for separation.  The Expeditious Discharge Program provided for the separation of soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.  The Board determined the  reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director