| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant offers no argument to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Dallas, Texas at the age of 29, on 22 December 1970, for a period of 2 years. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas for duty as a chaplain’s assistant. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 26 April 1971.
On 28 March 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 20 March 1972, for failure to go to his place of duty on 21 March 1972 and failure to obey lawful orders from an NCO on 22 March 1972. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2. He appealed the punishment and his appeal was denied on 4 April 1972.
On 28 May 1972, the applicant’s commander initiated a request to release the applicant from active duty under the expanded Qualitative Management Program (QMP) for personnel serving in the pay grades of E-1 and E-2 for failure to demonstrate potential for advancement. The commander indicated that he had counseled the applicant on several occasions concerning his attitude, personal appearance and performance of duty. The applicant’s attitude and demeanor were not conducive to an adequate performance and there was no indication on the applicant’s part to correct his shortcomings. The commander indicated that promotion to the next higher grade was not contemplated and recommended that he be discharged under honorable conditions. The applicant acknowledged that he had been counseled.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 22 June 1972 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 July 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33 and Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) message number 242110Z September 1971. He had served 1 year, 6 months and 21 days of total active service and was advised of the procedures for applying to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.
He applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on 18 January 1973. The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and denied his request on 30 October 1973.
On 6 September 1975, the applicant received a waiver and enlisted in the Illinois Army National Guard (ILARNG) for a period of 1 year. He was honorably released from the ILARNG on 5 September 1976 upon the expiration of his term of service (ETS) and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Standby Reserve), where he remained until he was honorably discharged on 21 December 1976.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5 of that regulation, which was further expanded by DCSPER message 242110Z September 1971, provided authorization for separation for the convenience of the government. It provided, in pertinent part, for a discharge based on failure to demonstrate promotion potential and meet acceptable standards for retention. A general discharge under honorable conditions was normally issued.
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 on 12 July 1972 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect, with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge issued and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in this case and the applicant’s otherwise undistinguished record of 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 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
___kan __ ___reb __ ___rjw __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058761 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1972/07/12 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH5 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | CON OF GOVT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 469 | 144.7000/A07.00 ERLY SEP UNDER DIR PROGRAMS |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013820
The recommendation for separation was submitted on 24 September 1973 and the appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 6 November 1973 under the provisions of Department of the Army message date time group (DTG) 242110Z September 1971, Subject: Extension of QMP to grades E-1 and E-2, due to failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. He was properly issued a SPN of 21U to indicate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012332
In an undated statement apparently given to him when his commander notified him he was recommending his separation, the applicant acknowledged that his platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and battery commander had counseled him repeatedly for his failure to demonstrate the standards of acceptable conduct for members of the U.S. Army. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant's discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the Army policy in effect at the time. Therefore,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014147
The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007751
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The evidence of record shows that the applicant was AWOL for the period 1 February 1972 through 2 March 1972. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011571
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show the following: * An upgrade of his character of service from under honorable conditions to honorable * Award of the Purple Heart, Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and all other awards that he may be entitled due to his Vietnam service 2. He states, in effect, his 201 file (Military Personnel Records Jacket) should show he received the Army Commendation Medal,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017791
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable. The applicants military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1, on 8 December 1971, for 3 years. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102487C070208
The applicant’s military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 8 July 1971. On 23 June 1972, the unit commander formally counseled the applicant regarding his candidacy for separation under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) due to his erratic performance of duty and admitted use of hard drugs. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008499
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to fully honorable. On 26 November 1971, by endorsement, the applicant's immediate commander was notified that the applicant's discharge was approved under the provisions of DA Message 242110Z Sep 71 with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate by reason of failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024035
Paragraph 13-10 of this regulation provides the service of Soldiers separated under this authority will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. Her record of service shows she did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071169C070402
The applicant was promoted to sergeant on 1 June 1993. The applicant was promoted to staff sergeant E-6 effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1997. On 15 August 2002 the official at the Army Reserve Personnel Command who scheduled the applicant for BNCOC in December 2002, stated that scheduling for BNCOC was top loaded, that she had no information whether or not he previously had been scheduled, but that he may have “fallen through the crack.”