| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member | |
| Mr. Joe R. Schroeder | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he requested discharge because he was continuously passed over for promotion even though he was qualified. He did not have any disciplinary actions against him. He provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 29 January 1973. Following completion of all military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B, Clerk Typist, and was assigned to Germany.
On 19 May 1973, the applicant was promoted to private/E-2.
On 24 July 1974, the applicant's company commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel guidance as stated in a letter, dated 12 August 1973, Subject: Expeditious Discharge Program; the company commander recommended a GD. The company commander stated that his reasons for the proposed action were the applicant’s inability to perform in his unit, his display of ineptness and apathy, his lack of work production, poor appearance, and lack of response to repeated corrections and counseling sessions. The applicant had been counseled 18 times. The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he requested that he be given an honorable discharge instead of a GD.
On 25 October 1974, the applicant’s discharge was approved with the issuance of a GD. He was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 17 days of active military service. He was separated as a private/E-2.
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statue of limitations.
The Expeditious Discharge Program provided that soldiers who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of their initial enlistment could be separated for demonstrating that they could not, or would not meet acceptable standards. The soldier must have voluntarily consented to separation.
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 applicant had no nonjudicial punishments or disciplinary actions, the applicant had been counseled 18 times for a myriad of issues related to minor misconduct and poor duty performance. The applicant's failure to gain promotion was related to his poor duty performance and was not an issue in his separation.
3. The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
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
_ LLS ___ __CG___ __JRS___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056190 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011010 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19741115 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | HQS USAREUR LTR, dated 3 Oct 73 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | EDP |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Director |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084007C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 16 September 1975, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5, the EDP. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074885C070403
There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade to his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. Further, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066186C070421
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by militarypersonnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068738C070402
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. There is no indication in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073372C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The record further shows that it was only after the applicant did not conform to required standards of discipline and performance that the command appropriately determined that he did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. Further, the Board finds that the applicant and his counsel have failed to provide evidence to show that his discharge was too harsh.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088768C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The Personnel Qualification Record (PQR-DA Form 2-1) prepared on the applicant on 10 March 1976, which he last reviewed and authenticated on 2 December 1976, shows, in Item 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools), that he completed three years of high school at Kiwanhee High School in 1967. The instructions of Item 20 (Highest Education Level Successfully Completed) states the entry will include the education completed in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072420C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 13 February 1976, his company commander initiated discharge proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program). This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062430C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his General discharge be upgraded to an Honorable discharge. Otherwise, a commander was required to separate soldiers under the provisions of the regulation which in most cases resulted in an other than honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067707C070402
The applicant requests that his General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD). On 20 September 1976, the applicant's company commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program, or EDP), Army Regulation 635-200. There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade within the statutory time limit imposed by that board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063803C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 14 February 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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.