| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was a good soldier; however, he suffered from depression and could not cope with any profession.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 17 February 1982, he enlisted in the Army for 2 years in the pay grade of E-1 and he successfully completed his training as a MANPADS crewmember.
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 27 July 1982, for being absent without leave from 17 July until 18 July 1982. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
On 20 August 1982, NJP was imposed against him for breaking restriction and for being drunk and disorderly. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
Although the counseling statements are unavailable for review by the Board, a review of the available records show that the applicant had also been counseled six times.
On 24 August 1982, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), had been initiated. His commander informed him that the elimination action was based on his poor attitude, lack of self-discipline and lack of motivation.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 30 August 1982 and he opted to submit a statement in his own behalf. In his statement he requested that he be furnished an honorable discharge rather than a general discharge. He stated that he had the highest respect for any person who was willing to lay his life on the line to defend our country. He further stated that he had met a young lady and that he and his fellow soldiers had physical disagreements about his choice in ladies. He went on to state that the physical disagreements along with his being late for formation on three different occasions were the reasons for elimination action being initiated against him. The applicant concluded his statement by saying that he had never disobeyed any order that he was given and that he apologized for not being fit to serve in the United States Army.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 15 September 1982. Accordingly, on 20 September 1982, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-31, under the EDP, based on his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. He had completed 7 months and 4 days of total active service.
On 14 February 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 falls 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 other 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, 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. However, they are unsubstantiated by the evidence of record. The record shows that he was counseled six times and he had NJP imposed against him twice as a result of his acts of misconduct. There is no evidence of record to support his contention that he suffered from depression and was unable to cope with his profession. He was furnished a general discharge and considering his numerous acts of misconduct, it does not appear that the type of discharge he received was too severe.
4. 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.
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
__jhl ____ ___rtd __ ___rjw __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063803 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/02/26 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1982/09/20 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 488 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 488 | 144.2400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010316
On 16 July 1982, 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), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), by reason of poor attitude, lack of self discipline, inability to adapt emotionally, and inability to demonstrate responsibility which indicated a lack of promotion potential. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012740
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 25 May 1982, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential. The DD Form 214 he was issued...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018658
On 3 May 1982, his immediate commander notified him that he intended to recommend separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), by reason of lack of ability to adapt socially and emotionally to military life. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008775
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. On 27 September 1982, 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). The applicant elected to submit a two-page statement in his own behalf in which he stated, in effect, that it was hard for him to adjust to military life and that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016708
The available evidence does not show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Based on the applicant's overall service record the applicant's service does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct of duty for Army personnel. 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 | CY2012 | 20120020656
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 22 March 1982, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073141C070403
He was returned to Fort Myer on 11 October and on 13 October 1978, the suspended portion of his punishment for the NJP imposed on 27 July 1978 was vacated and he was reduced to the pay grade of E-3. On 9 January 1979, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders...
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 | CY2014 | 20140007001
The available records also show his unit initiated separation action, on 2 September 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5, paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program). In an undated endorsement, the separation authority approved the unit commanders request to discharge the applicant and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. d. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022512
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 5 February 1982, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel) by reason of inability to adjust to the normal standards desired by the Army in conduct and efficiency. The DD Form 214 he was issued...