| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. He makes no statement and submits no evidence in support of his request.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 28 February 1979, at the age of 18, with 11 years of formal education, and a GT (general technical) score of 109.
He successfully completed basic training and began advanced individual training as a medical specialist at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, in May 1979.
Between July 1979 and February 1980, the applicant was punished three times under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). His offenses included dereliction of duty and failure to report to his appointed place of duty.
In February 1980 his unit commander initiated action to bar the applicant from reenlisting. His records of NJP (nonjudicial punishment), and a letter of indebtedness, were cited as the basis for the local bar to reenlistment. The bar was approved.
In March 1980 the applicant was punished again under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to be at his appointment place of duty.
In March 1980 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5 (Expeditious Discharge). The commander cited the applicant's four UCMJ actions, poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, and inability to accept instructions and directions, as the basis for his recommendation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed recommendation, consulted with counsel, and waived his attendant rights, including the right to make a statement or submit a rebuttal.
The recommendation was approved, and on 15 May 1980 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.
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 Expeditious Discharge Program (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.
Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with established laws and regulation. There is no evidence which would serve as a basis to justify upgrading the character of his discharge.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 15 May 1980, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 15 May 1983.
The application was received in August 2001 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant
the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__AAO__ __LE____ __JTM __ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061650 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011127 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075523C070403
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. On 27 March 1980 the applicant acknowledged notification that his unit commander was recommending that he be administratively separated from active duty under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067008C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He stated that he had to get out of the Army. On 6 February 1980 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to release him from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program), because of his lack of motivation as indicted by reports of evaluation, statements, tests,...
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 | CY2004 | 04104293C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 24 June 1981 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 (Expeditious Discharge Program). There were no medical records available to the Board or provided by the applicant.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710183
APPLICANT REQUESTS : That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The approval authority approved the recommendation and on 4 November 1976 the applicant was separated from active duty with a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710183C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 | CY2008 | 20080008669
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set for the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 | 2003087939C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His record does not indicate the basis for the confinement. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.