| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was told that the GD he received under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) would be automatically upgraded to an HD.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 12 August 1981, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years. He completed training in and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS)
91B (Medical Specialist).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that highest rank he attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3). However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 21 May 1982, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.
In addition, the applicant was counseled on the following five occasions for the infractions indicated: 6 May 1982, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 11 May 1982, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 12 May 1982, for failure to report to physical training; 18 May 1982, for being absent without leave (AWOL), failure to report to his appointed place of duty, and for disobeying a lawful order; and 21 June 1982, for failure to report to his appointed place of duty and neglect of his duties and responsibilities.
On 19 July 1982, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of the EDP, paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200. The commander cited the applicant’s lack of motivation, self discipline, poor attitude, and lack of promotion potential as the reasons for the separation action. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 26 July 1982, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant receive a GD. On 29 July 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly after completing a total of 11 months and 18 days of active military service.
There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade to his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-31, in effect at the time, stated that individuals who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of their poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged form the Army.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his GD was to be automatically upgraded to an HD under the provisions of the EDP, but it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when and if the applicant applies to either the ADRB or this Board requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if an authorized Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
3. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, after full consideration of his entire record, the Board concludes that the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.
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
SAC KWL JTM DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068728 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/07 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD ) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19820719 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Paragraph 5-13, EDP |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.2400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015665C071029
The applicant states, in effect, he entered active duty in 1981 and received a GD in 1982. On 21 July 1982, 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 (EDP), Army Regulation 635-200, after completing 1 year and 6 days of his enlistment and a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 23 days of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060677C070421
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008402
The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants 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. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010339
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 December 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070010339 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant states, in effect, that he was not a disruption to his unit chain of command rather he did not like his military occupational specialty (MOS) nor his duty assignment and its location. Individuals...
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 | CY2005 | 20050004337C070206
The applicant’s military record indicates that he accepted NJP for being AWOL for 5 days, however, the particulars are missing from his file. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year statute of limitations. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board requesting a change in discharge.
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001063803C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 14 February 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 | CY2002 | 2002066530C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 December 1976, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). He also acknowledged that he could only be discharged under the EDP if he agreed to the discharge and that he could withdraw his consent anytime prior to approval by...