| Mr. | Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. | James M. Alward | Member |
| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. | Joseph 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 does not feel his actions were serious enough to warrant being given a mark of disgrace to bear for an entire lifetime.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 7 November 1972 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 22. At the time of his enlistment in the Regular Army the applicant had completed 30 months of inactive service in the Army Reserve and was qualified in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police). He was assigned overseas duty in Germany for his first Regular Army assignment.
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However there is a history of disciplinary and poor performance problems including acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on three separate occasions; and a bar to reenlistment.
On 17 April 1973 the applicant accepted an NJP for willfully disobeying an order from a superior commissioned officer on 5 April 1973. The resultant punishment for this offense was a reduction to the grade of private/E-1 and a forfeiture of $153.00 per month for 2 months.
On 7 May 1973 the applicant’s unit commander recommended a bar to reenlistment be imposed on the applicant. He gave the following as the factual indicators of the applicant’s untrainability and unsuitability: his apprehension while taking part in a hashish party on 5 April 1973; his refusal to take a urinalysis test on 6 April 1973; and the fact that small amounts of hashish were found in his privately owned vehicle (POV) during a shakedown on 6 April 1973. The commander also stated that the applicant had been repeatedly warned that the Military Police (MP) company must set the example, and that his actions had undermined and jeopardized the unit’s moral and mission in Berlin. On 15 May 1973 the appropriate authority approve the imposition of the bar to reenlistment action on the applicant.
On 22 May 1973 the applicant accepted his second NJP for wrongfully introducing marijuana into a military unit for his own use and for wrongfully operating a (POV) without insurance, registration, or license. The resultant punishment was 14 days of extra duty and restriction and 7 days correctional custody (suspended).
On 27 June 1973 the applicant accepted his third NJP for missing physical training formation on 25 June 1973 and was punished with a
forfeiture of $125.00 per month for 2 months and restriction for 10 days.
On 17 July 1973 the applicant was reassigned out of the Berlin Brigade to another MP unit in Germany for rehabilitation.
On 13 December 1973 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant that he intended to initiate separation action, under the provisions of the United States Army Europe (USAREUR) test Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), as outlined in a Department of the Army Letter dated 20 August 1973. The commander cited as his reasons for the action the applicant’s failure to respond to the performance standards; his stated desire to no longer be an MP; his being relieved of duty for failing to comply with a directive from the desk sergeant; and his wanting to leave military service. The commander concluded by stating the applicant should be discharged for the good of the service based on his poor duty performance and failure to adapt to the MP corps or the Army with a GD. On the same date the applicant completed a 1st endorsement in which he voluntarily accepted discharge, attested to his understanding that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on receiving a GD, and that he had been provided the opportunity to consult with counsel.
On 17 December 1973 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged with a GD. Accordingly, on
26 December 1973 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year,
1 month, and 20 days of active military service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Department of the Army Letter dated 20 August 1973 established the Expeditious Discharge Program as 1 year test program for soldiers assigned to USAREUR and established policy and prescribed procedure for separating members under the EDP. The EDP provided for the separation of soldiers who were enlistees or inductees; who had between 12 and 21 months of service; and demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel. The EDP test allowed for a either an HD or a GD characterization of service.
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 provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated his misconduct and poor duty performance. The Board examined the applicant's record of service and determined that his quality of service was below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant voluntarily accepted the discharge and was fully informed, by the chain of command, of the basis for his separation, to include the character of service being recommended, and the reasons for the discharge.
2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. 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 | 9707681
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. During the counseling, his senior NCO stated that the applicant had been counseled a number of times in the past for missing formation and for not being at his appointed place of duty. The CO noted that the applicant had no potential to become a productive soldier and recommended separation under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) if the request for conscientious...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710409
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 the 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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, disability retirement or separation. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707681C070209
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY1997 | 9710453
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073141C070403
He was returned to Fort Myer on 11 October and on 13 October 1978, the suspended portion of his punishment for the NJP imposed on 27 July 1978 was vacated and he was reduced to the pay grade of E-3. On 9 January 1979, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056190C070420
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 | 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...