IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100024647 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he encountered an incident that devastated him, affected his morale, and changed his life.  He was young and excited about entering the military.  However, upon arrival at Fort Campbell, KY, he had to walk under a confederate flag and he was confronted with threats from white Soldiers.  These threats ignited a riot between white and black Soldiers.  Military police (MP) officials arrested everyone involved.  Later, white Soldiers were reprimanded and were told to apologize to the black Soldiers.  Once the dust settled, he became very depressed and withdrawn and he began to rebel against his superiors.  This episode had a lasting effect.  He continues to struggle to this day with the situation he was placed in.  He was a young black Soldier who felt he was in two wars, fighting for two flags and two ideas.  Prior to this incident, he was a model Soldier.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter to the Commanding Officer, Fort Campbell, KY
* a letter from the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID)
* a letter from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient clinic
* assignment orders
* a letter from the National Archives and Records Administration
* a mental health statement
* two VA Rating Decisions
* a DD Form 2765 (Department of Defense/Uniformed Services Identification and Privilege Card)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090005938 on 3 September 2009.

2.  The applicant provides a new argument, his VA rating decision, and a letter from CID, which were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR.  His additional document and his argument are considered new evidence and as such warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 October 1973.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

4.  His records show he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal.  The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was private first class/
E-3.  He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 326th Engineer Battalion, Fort Campbell, KY.

5.  On 11 November 1974, he failed to return from ordinary leave and he was accordingly reported as absent without leave (AWOL).  He surrendered to his unit on or about 25 November 1974.

6.  On 4 December 1974, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from 11 to 25 November 1974. 

7.  On 18 March 1975, he accepted NJP for being AWOL on 17 March 1974 from on or about 0730 hours to on or about 1630 hours. 

8.  On 25 July 1975, he accepted NJP for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  

9.  On 13 August 1975, the applicant's immediate commander referred him to a mental health evaluation.  The military psychiatrist found him able to distinguish right from wrong and did not manifest signs and symptoms requiring a medical board or hospitalization on psychiatric grounds.  The military psychiatrist concluded the applicant suffered from an adjustment reaction manifested by difficulty coping with and adjusting to military life.  He recommended his expeditious discharge.

10.  On 4 September 1975, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program).  He remarked that the applicant had demonstrated by his job performance that he possessed little motivation and desire for continued service.  His behavior proved disruptive to others.  He further recommended a general discharge.

11.  The applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge from the Army.  He consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation from the Army, the effect on future enlistment in the Army, the possible effects of a general discharge under honorable conditions, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  He voluntarily consented to this discharge.  The applicant further acknowledged he understood if he were issued a general discharge he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

12.  On 8 September 1975, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against the applicant.  The immediate commander stated that the applicant had little motivation or desire for continued service.  His behavior proved disruptive to the extent that it was interfering with normal daily operations. 
He recommended the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

13.  On 16 September 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service and directed that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.  On 24 September 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly.   The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 1 year, 10 months, and 17 days of creditable active service with 14 days of lost time.

14.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  The applicant submitted:

	a.  VA Rating Decisions, dated 19 March 2004 and 8 May 2007, relating to service-connected disability compensation for depression/adjustment disorder;

	b.  a letter, dated 25 September 2009, from a VA outpatient clinic wherein a medical doctor states the applicant had been seen at this clinic for depression that he alleged started when he was in the military.  He reported being in a fight over racial issues at Fort Campbell, KY; and

	c.  a letter, dated 14 June 2010, from the Director, Crime Records Center, CID, informing him that there is no record of a CID investigation or an MP report pertaining to him.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would 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 under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.  No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was 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 was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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 clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his general discharge should be upgraded.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of his inability to adapt to military life.  Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.  More importantly, he voluntarily consented to his discharge.
3.  His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  Based on his overall record, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  It is acknowledged that racial tensions existed at the time.  However, there is no evidence in his records and he did not provide any evidence of this incident upon arrival at Fort Campbell, KY.  More importantly, there is no evidence this alleged incident led to his disciplinary problems.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he requests.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ____X___  ___X____DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090005938, dated 3 September 2009.



      ___________X___________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100024647



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100024647



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1