| Mr. | Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Karen J. Newsome | Member | |
| Mr. | Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Member |
| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710453C070209
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 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. The Board determined the reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709387
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008115
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 23 May 1977, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), with a GD. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon discharge on 24 June 1977, shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709457
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012610
On 13 January 1976, the separation authority approved the applicants separation under the provisions of the EDP, and directed the applicant receive a GD. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing under the provisions of the EDP was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707173
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 he application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority approved the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711218
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009697
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Evidence of record shows that the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15 of the UCMJ on four occasions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709387C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710214
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...