IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  9 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140017118 


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 to upgrade his general discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* the record is not in error
* he was told his discharge would be upgraded to honorable after a period of time
* he was experiencing marital problems when he entered the Army in 1974 and he could not concentrate on his duties
* he went to his company commander and was given two choices – stay in the military or leave with a discharge under honorable conditions

3.  The applicant provides correspondence from a Member of Congress, dated 29 August 2014.

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 AC83-06894 on 28 September 1983.

2.  The applicant presents new arguments that were not previously considered by the Board which warrant consideration at this time.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 October 1974 for 4 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11D (armor reconnaissance specialist).

4.  Between 6 March 1975 and 7 April 1975, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on three occasions for being absent without leave (AWOL) from:

* 3-5 March 1975
* 14-17 March 1975
* 3-4 April 1975

5.  On 15 July 1975, he was notified of his pending separation for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the Expeditious Discharge Program under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37.  The unit commander cited:

	a.  He was counseled on numerous occasions for unsatisfactory conduct, being AWOL, failing to pay just debts, and writing a bad check.

	b.  His ability to solve and correct his problems was hampered by apathy and total lack of interest in becoming a productive Soldier.

	c.  Discharge was recommended because of his apathy and rebellious attitude toward authority and constant unsatisfactory conduct.

	d.  He was a detriment to the morale, discipline, and efficiency of the unit.

6.  On 17 July 1975, he acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge, voluntarily consented to the separation, and elected not to make a statement on his behalf.  He also acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if issued a general discharge and he had been provided an opportunity to consult with counsel.

7.  On 30 July 1975, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

8.  He was accordingly discharged on 11 August 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failing to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He completed 9 months and 3 days of total active service with 6 days of lost time.

9.  On 3 November 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an honorable discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  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.

	b.  Paragraph 5-37, in effect at the time, provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of active duty and who had demonstrated they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions:  poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  No individual would be discharged under this program unless the individual voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  Individuals discharged under this provision of the regulation were issued an honorable or a general discharge.

11.  The U.S. Army does not currently have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reason for discharge, or both, was improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he was told his discharge would be upgraded after a period of time.  However, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.

2.  He also contends he was having marital problems when he enlisted; however, marital problems alone are normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

3.  His record of service included adverse counseling statements, three NJPs, and 6 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

4.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.  In addition, he voluntarily consented to the discharge.

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

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

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 AC83-06894, dated 28 September 1983.



      ____________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)                                         AR20140017118



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140017118



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1