MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 21 March 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001064412

         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Lee Cates		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		Member

         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: That the characterization of his service be upgraded from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he served honorably and feels he deserves an honorable discharge. He enlisted in the Army in October 1971. He received two honorable discharges – one from the Washington Army National Guard (WAARNG) and the second from the Arkansas Army National Guard (ARARNG). He indicates this was a very stressful period for him because his father and brother both passed away. His brother’s last wish was for him to care for his wife and four small children. He became extremely depressed, angry, confused, hurt, and saddened from this traumatic loss. He feels he did nothing dishonorable and that he chose to enlist in the Army instead of being drafted. He indicates he is an honorable man that had and still has a strong belief in honoring his country and the freedom that we now are able to enjoy and respect. He further indicates that the memories and depression still haunts him as they say “to put more salt into the wounds of war time.” The additional stress and depression were enhanced by the loss of many; many very close friends and companions (“brothers”) that he proudly served with. He requests this change for himself, his wife, children and grandchildren because he gave nothing of himself but respect and did his very best he could do in those traumatic and stressful years of his life. He now would appreciate the recognition of his loyalty and honorable service to his country in the awarding of an honorable discharge.

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

On 17 May 1972, he enlisted in the WAARNG.

During the period 9 June to 6 October 1972, he served his initial active duty for training at Fort Leonardwood, Missouri, completing basic combat and advanced individual training. He was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (Motor Transportation). He was advanced to pay grade E-3.

On 17 March 1974, he was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-3, based on his enlistment in the ARARNG.

On 18 March 1974, he enlisted in the ARARNG.

On 5 August 1974, he was reduced from pay grade E-3 to E-2, based on inefficiency.

On 16 April 1975, he was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-2, from the ARARNG and involuntarily ordered to active duty for 19 months and 2 days based on his unsatisfactory participation.

During the period 17 April to 21 October 1975, he was in an absent without leave and desertion status. He was apprehended by federal agents. There is nothing in his records which reflects punishment for this infraction.

On 12 May 1976, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 10 and 11 May 1976. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $84 pay per month for one month ($44 suspended for 30 days) and extra duty for 14 days (suspended for 30 days). On 13 May 1976, he appealed the punishment and on 18 May 1976, the appeal was denied. On 20 May 1976, another (unidentified) infraction caused the suspension of pay and extra duty to be revoked.

On 21 June 1976, his commander advised him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), based on his lack of motivation, poor attitude, lack of self discipline and demonstrated inability to adapt socially and emotionally to military life. He also advised him of his rights.

On 21 June 1976, he acknowledged his commander’s notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge. He indicated that he understood that if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions, he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He waived consideration of and personal appearance before an administrative board; indicated that statements in his own behalf would not be submitted and waived consulting counsel.

On 21 June 1976, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate (GDC).

On 23 June 1976, he was discharged under the above-cited regulation and issued a GDC. His separation document indicates he had 11 months and 24 days of creditable service and 191 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, as then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the EDP. This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated. Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel.

---

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs. The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper. There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.

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 is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He has not shown otherwise.

3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4. 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 this requirement

5. 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

_jns____ _lds____ _jtm______ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064412
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020321
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.