| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: When he was discharged from the Army, he was told that his characterization of service could be changed to honorable.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 23 April 1979 for a period of 3 years and the United States Army Training of Choice Enlistment Option, military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B, (Military Police). Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded MOS 95B and was assigned to the Republic of Korea as his first permanent duty station.
On 15 May 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk and disorderly. His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2, forfeiture of $75.00 pay for one month and 14 days' restriction and extra duty.
On 20 May 1980, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go, at the time prescribed, to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $75.00 pay for one month and 14 days' restriction and extra duty.
The record indicates the applicant's first sergeant counseled him on two occasions regarding his punishment of extra duty and restriction.
On 23 May 1980, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to eliminate him from the United States Army under the provisions of paragraph
5-31, Army Regulation 635-200 Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), for failing to maintain acceptable standards for retention. The unit commander's reasons for separation were the applicant's inability to adjust to military life and discipline, his substandard behavior both on and off duty, and his failure to respond appropriately to disciplinary actions. The applicant was advised of his rights, chose not to make a statement in his own behalf, and agreed to separation under the EDP. The applicant acknowledged with his signature that he understood that there was neither automatic upgrading nor review by any government agency of a characterization of service that was under honorable conditions, and that he had to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records if he wished a review of characterization of service. He further acknowledged that the act of consideration by either Board did not imply that his characterization would be upgraded.
The separation authority concurred with the unit commander and approved the discharge with a GD. Accordingly, on 2 July 1980, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days of active military service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within its 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. Chapter 5 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions (poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential) may be separated under the Army expeditious discharge program when they have failed to respond to counseling.
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 discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
2. The applicant was discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program. In order to be separated under this program, the applicant had to voluntarily consent to the proposed separation.
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
__dhp ___ ___kan __ ____mhm DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001066186 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020514 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19800702 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapter 5-31 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | EDP |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Director |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0135 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084007C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 16 September 1975, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5, the EDP. 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:
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 | CY2002 | 2002073093C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : Nothing further and submits no additional evidence in support of his case. On the same day his unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709387
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707681
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. During the counseling, his senior NCO stated that the applicant had been counseled a number of times in the past for missing formation and for not being at his appointed place of duty. The CO noted that the applicant had no potential to become a productive soldier and recommended separation under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) if the request for conscientious...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001090C071029
On 2 July 1980, his unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), and that he was recommending the applicant receive a GD. On 9 July 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of the EDP, and directed the applicant receive a GD. The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-31,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709387C070209
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 Board considered the...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080000C070215
Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty. However, service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071492C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) that resulted in a loss of rank, extra duty and a transfer to the motor pool. 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.