| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he needs to have his discharge upgraded to become a police officer. He states that this type of discharge was the only option that his company commander gave him.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 27 December 1974 and completed basic combat training and advanced individual training.
On 16 January 1975, the applicant received a Certificate of Achievement from the commanding officer Schofield Barracks, Hawaii for his work during a training exercise.
On 11 March 1976, he received a letter of thank you, signed by a major general, for his work on the expansion of the playground at the day care center.
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) three times for being absent from his appointed place of duty.
Following his third NJP, 3 December 1975, the applicant was referred to the mental hygiene clinic for a mental status evaluation (MSE). The MSE, conducted on 16 December 1975, found no abnormalities and reported that the applicant was capable to understand and participate in any board actions deemed appropriate.
The applicant was reported absent from his appointed place of duty a fourth time on 28 January 1976.
On 13 February 1976, his company commander initiated discharge proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program). The commander cited the applicant's inability to adapt, poor attitude, and hostility towards the military service as documented by 12 negative counseling incidents and three NJPs. The company commander recommended that the applicant receive a general under honorable conditions discharge.
After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant acknowledged the proposed discharge and voluntarily accepted this discharge. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights and that he if he received a general discharge that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge.
The discharge authority approved the request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 and directed that the applicant receive a general discharge.
The applicant was discharged on 5 March 1976 with 1 year, 2 months, and 23 days of creditable service.
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, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel. Separation program designator (SPD) was the appropriate designator for discharge under this test program.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded that:
1. The applicant's voluntary acceptance of an EDP discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
2. The applicant's two favorable actions do not outweigh the 15 reported infractions; therefore the Board concludes that his service is appropriately characterized by his overall record.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002072420 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021217 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7 |
| 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 | CY2002 | 2002074885C070403
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. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. Further, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067707C070402
The applicant requests that his General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD). On 20 September 1976, the applicant's company commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program, or EDP), Army Regulation 635-200. There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade within the statutory time limit imposed by that board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076604C070215
She was honorably discharged form the U. S. Army Reserve on 24 April 1991. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 19 April 1976.
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 | 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 | CY2013 | 20130019558
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show his character of service was honorable. On 22 January 1976, his company commander notified him he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). On 5 March 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023623
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 18 September 1977, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). The pertinent paragraph Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36...
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 | 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.