| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. James E. Vick | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That upon release from the Army, he was told that he could request that his discharge be upgraded any time after 6 months.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 22 December 1976, he enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) of the United States Army Reserve. His DD Form 3286-40 (Statement for Enlistment-Delayed Entry Program) shows that he enlisted for military occupational specialty (MOS) 36C (Telephone Installer and Lineman). On
7 March 1977, he was discharged from the DEP.
On 8 March 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training at Fort Gordon, Georgia and he was awarded (MOS) 36C. On 1 July 1977, he was assigned to Germany.
On 15 August 1977, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 9 August 1977. On 29 September 1977, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order of a commissioned officer on 3 September 1977. His punishments included forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 18 May 1978, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 6 and 13 May 1978. His punishment included forfeiture of $30.00 pay for 1 month, 7 days' restriction and reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 60 days). On an unknown date, the suspended portion of his punishment to reduction was vacated and he was reduced to pay grade E-1.
On 10 July 1978, NJP was imposed against him for resisting lawful apprehension by military police on 2 July 1978. His punishment included forfeiture of
$30.00 pay for 1 month and 10 days' extra duty and restriction.
On 3 September 1978, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program(EDP)), with a GD. He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant's immature attitude and lack of promotion potential. The commander added that the applicant had failed to adapt socially and emotionally to military life and he lacked the motivation and self-discipline necessary to be more than a marginal soldier. He concluded that it was in the best interest of the Army to expeditiously discharge the applicant.
The applicant's records do not contain a statement that shows that he consulted with legal counsel. However, his records do contain a statement dated
4 September 1978 that shows he acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 15 September 1978, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD.
On 11 October 1978, the applicant was separated with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP). He had completed a total of 1 year,
7 months and 4 days of active military service and he had 2 months and 17 days of prior inactive service.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect, at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-31 of this regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of those individuals who failed to maintain acceptable standards for retention. This paragraph also provided for the separation of those individuals that demonstrated an inability to adapt socially or emotionally to the Army environment or those who responded initially, but within a short period of time demonstrated that they were incapable of permanent adjustment. Under this regulation, a GD or an HD was considered appropriate. Further, the regulation then in effect stated that no individual would be given a GD by the separation authority unless the commander initiating the action for separation recommended it and the soldier had the opportunity to receive legal counsel.
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. 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.
2. Although the available records do not contain a statement indicating that the applicant received legal counsel, he would have consulted with legal counsel prior to signing the statement that he voluntarily signed consenting to discharge under the provisions of chapter 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention EDP. The Board presumes administrative regularity and the applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.
3. 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
_JEV___ __BJE___ __WDB__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052915 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | 20010821 |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19781011 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.4000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080746C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was suffering from alcoholism at the time of separation. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002080746SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030729TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19780508DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 5DISCHARGE REASONA40.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES...
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 | CY2008 | 20080008296
The commander stated he was recommending that the applicants service be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. Individuals discharged under the provisions of this paragraph may be awarded an honorable or general discharge. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091014C070212
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 3 August 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and the Expeditious Discharge Program. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071492C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) that resulted in a loss of rank, extra duty and a transfer to the motor pool. Otherwise, a commander was required to separate soldiers under other provisions of the regulation, which in most cases resulted in an other than honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012234
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 25 September 1978, the commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). Otherwise, a commander was required to separate Soldiers under other provisions of the regulation which in most cases resulted in an other than honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027034
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100027034 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009337
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 14 August 1979 in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 (EDP), for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention, and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Considering that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016654
On 23 January 1980, the applicants commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents) serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018870
The applicant requests the reason and authority and the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code for his discharge be updated. The applicant's commander requested that he be discharged under the provisions of the EDP. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to have the reason for his discharge changed.