| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Maria C. Sanchez | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his General discharge be upgraded to an Honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In January 1975 he was discharged from the Army with an Honorable Discharge and that there is no indication in his records that he was ever a trouble maker or disrespectful to authority. When he reenlisted in December 1975, as a newlywed, he believed it would be a good career opportunity. While in the field, he learned that a soldier in his company was having an affair with his wife. He also stated that he learned that the Army was no place for a family and did not care one bit if a soldier had family problems. He attempted to solve his own problems by taking a leave of absence and going home to Columbia, South Carolina, to see if his wife’s parents could help. To no avail, and the refusal of his wife, he called his Company Commander to inform him of the trouble he was having. The Commander had no sympathy, and told him to return immediately. When he returned to Fort Riley, he received an Article 15 for being 7 days late from leave. Looking back, he does not believe that to be fair.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show:
On 1 February 1973, he enlisted in the Army for 2 years in the pay grade of E-1 and he successfully completed his training as a field radio mechanic. On 11 July 1974, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4. He was then honorably discharged on 31 January 1975.
The applicant reenlisted on 1 December 1975, for a period of 4 years and was assigned to the 977th MP Company in Fort Riley, Kansas, in the pay grade of
E-4.
On 6 July 1976, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being AWOL from 26 June 1976 until 3 July 1976. His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and 14 days of extra duty.
On 20 July 1976, the applicant submitted an appeal to the NJP imposed against him. On 26 July 1976, his commander denied his appeal.
On 24 August 1976, the applicant was counseled for not getting a haircut and trimming his moustache to regulation. His supervisor informed him that not conforming to regulation could result in extra training. The applicant submitted a statement indicating that he preferred a Chapter 13 discharge rather than the extra training.
On 25 August 1976, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) had been initiated. He acknowledged receipt of the notification and on 25 August 1976, he submitted a voluntary consent to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 paragraph 5-37, under the EDP, based on his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. The applicant waived his right to submit a statement and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a GD under honorable conditions.
The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 14 September 1976. Accordingly, on 21 September 1976, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, and the EDP. He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 14 days of total active service and he was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
The Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973. In a message dated 8 November 1974, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP. The program provided for the separation of soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty and/or potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required for retention in the Army. Soldiers may be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identifies them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders to separate them under the provision of the EDP. 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.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions and his personal accomplishments he made after his discharge. However, these accomplishments are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4. In order to justify correction of 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.
5. 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
___mm__ __alr____ __kak ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062430 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/18 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1976/09/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, para 5-37 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | EDP |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075644C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018489
His record did not contain any evidence and he did not provide any substantiating evidence which showed his recruiter had an inappropriate relationship with his wife or that he would receive an honorable discharge. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 9 April 1976 under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 and was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions. His record does not support an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013484
On 15 March 1977, his immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). On 6 April 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of his inability to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055159C070420
In this incident, his commanding officer told him that unless he took action to correct his deficiencies, consideration might be given to his being separated from the Army under the appropriate Army Regulation. 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. The record clearly shows that he was counseled three times and he had had NJP imposed against him twice as a result of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005305
The applicant believes that an honorable discharge is more appropriate and more accurately characterizes his service record and being awarded a general discharge was grossly unjust. The unit commander further informed the applicant of the effects of a less than honorable discharge and the rights available to him. There is no indication in his military record that the applicant applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014994C070206
The applicant further states, that when he was being discharged from service his First Sergeant told him that after 6 months his discharge would be upgraded to an honorable discharge. It also shows that at the time of discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 3 months and 13 days of active military service. There is no evidence in his military record nor has the applicant provided any evidence to support his allegations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086075C070212
On 17 March 1976, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 13 April 1976; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 13 April 1979. The Board determined that the evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017103
On 25 February 1976, the applicants immediate commander recommended the applicant be discharged with a General Discharge Certificate. There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Based on his overall record, the applicant's service does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009994
On 5 April 1977, the applicants immediate commander advised the applicant that he intended to recommend his discharge from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program, or EDP) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of inability to adapt to a military environment and lack of motivation and self-discipline. There is no indication showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008115
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 23 May 1977, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), with a GD. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon discharge on 24 June 1977, shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army...