| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn. Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be reinstated to active duty with back pay. He states that the Army did not afford him the opportunity to overcome his stated deficiencies.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was separated for physical and psychological unfitness and did not receive due process. He also contends that he was entitled to a board of officers because he was stigmatized by the discharge. He cites case law that he believes supports his request. He did not indicate a date of discovery nor provide any rationale as to why the Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider the application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant had previously submitted two applications. One, dated 22 February 1996, requested that the applicant be separated due to physical disability. The other, dated 10 March 1997, requested that he be reinstated. Neither could be completed because his records could not be located. After his records were located, he was asked, in a 14 June 1998 letter, to specify the exact nature of the relief he was requesting. The applicant responded, in a 19 June 1998 letter, that he sought reinstatement with back pay. Notwithstanding that exchange of correspondence, on 28 January 1999, the Board considered the applicant’s earlier request for physical disability separation. Subsequently, the applicant requested that his appeal for reinstatement be reconsidered. However, it is more appropriate to consider this appeal in a de novo review than to treat the case as though it is a reconsideration.
The applicant enlisted and entered active duty on 13 May 1980. He completed one site unit training as an infantryman at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on 11 August 1980.
On 4 December 1980 the applicant was counseled about poor performance.
On 7January 1981 the applicant’s company commander notified him of initiated separation and transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). The stated reasons were, “You are unfit both physically and psychologically for military service. Despite all efforts to improve your job related skills you refuse to show progress. You lack the motivation and desire to be an average soldier. Your duty performance is extremely below standards and you require constant supervision to complete even the simplest tasks. You have never completed any physical training event. You have refused to participate in training that is basic to your survival on the battlefield. It would be better for the United States Army and you to terminate your future with the military.” He was also notified that he had the right to decline this separation, but that if he declined, his subsequent conduct might make him subject to disciplinary or administrative separation. He was also informed that he had a right to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 8 January 1981 the applicant was counseled about the proposed separation by a military lawyer, a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. The applicant acknowledged the proposed separation. He indicated that he voluntarily accepted the separation and that he would not submit statements in his own behalf. He also indicated that he would not be allowed to reenlist in the Army for 2 years.
The battalion commander considered the case and directed the applicant’s separation with an honorable discharge.
The applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service, on 29 January 1981.
Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, as then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the EDP. 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 socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated. Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel. The EDP did not apply to Reserve or Army National Guard personnel on any type of active duty training.
On 3 April 1981 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). He apparently did not respond to the ADRB’s 25 April 1981 request to keep them informed of any change in address so that a hearing could be scheduled in the requested location. The ADRB did not review the case.
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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. There is no available evidence that the applicant was not given adequate opportunity to correct his deficiencies. The fact that in approximately four months he failed to complete a single physical training event indicates that he was given numerous opportunities to improve.
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 this 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
__FNE___ __MKP _ ___LE___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057207 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020207 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | 110.03 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2004 | 20040011427C070208
All of the administrative separation paperwork is no longer available in the record; however, on 11 December 1980, the applicant's commander recommended her separation with a general discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013902
On 23 June 1981, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)) by reason of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential. On 2 July 1981, the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015665C071029
The applicant states, in effect, he entered active duty in 1981 and received a GD in 1982. On 21 July 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of the EDP, and directed the applicant receive a GD. The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 (EDP), Army Regulation 635-200, after completing 1 year and 6 days of his enlistment and a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 23 days of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011562
On 16 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-31, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and ordered the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitation 11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011103
The applicant requests, in effect, his discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program be changed to a medical discharge. The applicant states he was seen several times by various medical personnel for mental and physical problems he suffered while in the Army. 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 | CY2005 | 20050001468C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 November 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001468 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 17 September 1980, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him under the Army's expeditious discharge program (EDP). Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001468C070206
Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. On 17 September 1980, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him under the Army's expeditious discharge program (EDP). Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 7 October 1980; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018074
On 28 May 1981, the applicants commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). He advised the applicant that he was recommending that he be discharged under honorable conditions. Therefore, he has failed to show through the evidence of record that his discharge or the reasons therefore were improper and given his undistinguished record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004131C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 September 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050004131 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The counseling statement provided by the Chaplain does not indicate that he (chaplain) was made aware of the applicant’s psychological or personal problems.