| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his DD Form 214, Report of Separation From Active Duty, be corrected to reflect that he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic, and that the authority and reason for separation be changed to physical disability.
APPLICANT STATES: That he completed his Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and was awarded a Certificate of Training for MOS 63B10; that he was injured during Basic Combat Training (BCT) and received medical attention; that he was denied legal counsel during the separation process and forced to sign for his discharge or face a dishonorable discharge. In support of his application, he provides: DA Form 87, Certificate of Training, for completion of the Wheeled Vehicle Mechanics' Course; Orders No. 109-19, dated 19 April 1978, ordering his discharge on 20 April 1978; a copy of his DD Form 214; and a copy of his Certificate of Honorable Discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 15 September 1977 and was sent to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for BCT and AIT.
The applicant was on sick call 17 times while undergoing BCT. On 3 October 1977, he reported to sick call complaining of stomach cramps and stated that he wanted to get out of the Army.
The applicant completed BCT on 11 November 1977 and was transferred to an AIT unit for training in MOS 63B10. He continued to visit sick call on a routine basis and began complaining of knee pain. Diagnosed as having chondromalacia, he was provided a knee brace and returned to duty.
On 7 April 1978, the applicant underwent a physical examination that determined that he was medically qualified for separation. The examination found "no objective pathology in [the applicant's] knee."
The applicant's AIT unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant on 10 April 1978. The applicant was notified that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, AR (Army Regulation) 635-200, Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). The specific reason for the proposed action was the applicant's failure to complete AIT because of his inability to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (AFPT), even after being placed in a special physical training program and being afforded close supervision. This occurred after the applicant was medically cleared for participation in physical training. The commander recommended an honorable discharge. The applicant acknowledged notification and accepted discharge under the EDP.
On 13 April 1978, the approving authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, AR 635-200, and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge. The applicant was separated with an honorable discharge on 20 April 1978. He had 7 months and 6 days of creditable service. Because he never completed all of the requirements for awarding of MOS 63B10, his DD Form 214 listed his MOS as 09B00 (Trainee).
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-31 of the regulation then in effect covered discharges under the expeditious discharge program wherein a commander in the rank of lieutenant colonel or above could separate soldiers who demonstrated that they could not, or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel. Personnel discharged under this provision were given honorable or general discharges. Soldiers were only entitled to legal counsel if being recommended for a general discharge. They had the right to decline separation under the expeditious discharge program.
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. The evidence of record shows that the applicant did not successfully complete AIT and so was properly not awarded MOS 63B10. The Board is aware that, as a matter of administrative expediency, service school diplomas are usually prepared and handed out well before a class’s graduation date. They are to be returned by soldiers who have failed to graduate; however, the Board is also aware that circumstances often prevent strict enforcement of this procedure. Possession of a diploma is not evidence of successful completion of a service school.
3. The applicant routinely went to sick call during his short military career. On one occasion, he told medical personnel that he "wanted out of the Army." This was duly recorded in his medical records. On 7 April 1978, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was medically cleared for separation.
4. There is no evidence that the applicant was prohibited from seeking legal counsel. As a regulatory matter, he was not entitled to legal counsel during the separation process because he was being recommended for a fully honorable discharge.
5. The applicant voluntarily accepted separation under the expeditious discharge program. There is no evidence that he made this decision under duress.
6. 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
__JNS__ __TBR___ __LE____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059764 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011220 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DIRECTOR |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.0500 |
| 2. | 145.0000 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017270
The applicant submitted a copy of a DA Form 2496, dated 9 December 1976, in which the immediate commander requested and was granted a waiver of the applicants physical test portion of his basic combat training due to a temporary physical profile that was awarded on 24 November 1976 for a period of 21 days for a dislocated knee cap and that the applicant was cleared to ship. On 10 February 1977, the applicants unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge...
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 | CY2003 | 2003091656C070212
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 evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069723C070402
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. DETERMINATION : The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016896
On 25 February 1980, the applicant's commander informed him he was initiating separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program). The applicant requests to be paid for about 80 days of leave, which he asserts he accrued while on active duty and should have been paid on separation. Regarding the accrued leave for which the applicant could be paid, neither the applicant's record nor...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000060
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge under the expeditious discharge program (EDP) be changed to show he was separated due to a physical disability. 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. The 8 September 1978 Chronological Record of Medical Care was considered, but the applicant was subsequently returned to duty and he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052915C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: 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.
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 | CY2014 | 20140004508
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was honorably discharged for medical reasons. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation requirements and approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, paragraph 5-31, and directed that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate. It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to document a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011384C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200 (EDP) after completing 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days of active military service. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.