MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:.
        

         BOARD DATE:
         DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-11472

         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:

Mr.			Chairperson
Mr.			Member
Mr.			Member

         Also present, without vote, were:

Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director
Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance		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 was a pretty good soldier as evidenced by his average conduct and efficiency ratings; that his record of promotions indicate he was a good service member; that he has been a good citizen since his discharge; that his AWOL infraction was a minor incident; that his medical problems impaired his ability serve; and that he should have been granted a medical discharge.

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

On 29 September 1972 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 2 years at the age of 18. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Polk, Louisiana and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas for his first permanent duty station where he was awarded military occupational specialty 45A (Armament Maintenance Apprentice).

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/E-2. However, there is a record of disciplinary infractions which include acceptance of nonjudicail punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two different occasions.

The applicant accepted an NJP for a period of AWOL from 1 to 4 November 1973. The record does not include the specific facts and circumstances of the NJP or the resultant punishment.

On 25 January 1974 the applicant accepted an NJP for violation of Articles 134 and 91 of the UCMJ for appearing in an unserviceable field jacket, and for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer to report to guard mount. His punishment for these offenses was 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 25 March 1974 the applicant’s unit commander recommended the applicant be separated, under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, AR 635-200, as revised in Department of the Army (DA) Message 251505Z, August 1972, Subject: Extension of Qualitative Management Program to grades E-1 and E-2, for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement and recommended the applicant be issued a GD. The unit commander cited as his reasons for the action the applicant’s inability to meet acceptable standards of productivity.

He also made reference to the applicant having been counseled on numerous occasions, by members of his chain of command, which resulted in a negligible improvement. Additionally, the commander commented that the applicant had been afforded the opportunity to enroll in a GED program, in order to obtain his high school diploma, which he refused to participate in; and that he had accepted NJP action for two separate disciplinary infractions. His conclusion was that he did not believe taking further retention or rehabilitation actions on the applicant would be in the best interest of either the applicant or the Army.

On 25 March 1974 the applicant completed a statement indicating he was aware of and had been counseled on the various options open to him, and the possible results of the a discharge, under the separation provisions recommended by his unit commander. He further stated that he was fully aware of the implications of his failure to be promoted and the consequential discharge.

On 28 March 1974 the appropriate authority approved the early release of the applicant from active duty with a GD, under the provisions of paragraph 5-37,
Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, with a separation program designator (SPD) code of 21U (failure to show adequate potential for promotion and advancement-Chapter 4 AR 600-200). On 3 April 1974 the applicant underwent a separation physical examination that indicated the applicant was qualified for separation. Medical authorities completed a disposition form attesting to the applicant being physically and mentally fit for duty without profile limitations and cleared him for administrative action. These conclusions were based on a review of the applicant’s physical and mental examinations. Accordingly, on 30 April 1974 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 6 months, and 28 days of active military service and accruing 4 days of time lost due to AWOL.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-37 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members subject to separation under the QMP for failure to show adequate potential for promotion. AR 600-200, chapter 4, in effect at the time, set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP. This program was based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards.

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 contentions of the applicant that physical problems impaired his ability to serve and that he should have been medically discharged were noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record. The applicant underwent a separation physical examination which determined he was physically and mentally fit for duty and cleared him for separation. While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's contentions that he had average conduct and efficiency ratings; that his AWOL infraction was a minor offense; and that his post service conduct has been good; none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

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