| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | 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 his discharge was initiated as a result of a marihuana pipe with residue being found in his room, even though he never failed a drug test or was apprehended for drug use. He states that the reasons used by his unit commander to justify the separation action were untrue. He indicates that he adapted to military life and as result of his father’s military experiences, he was raised with discipline and high standards being instilled in him. In support of his application, he submits a copy his separation document (DD Form 214), Personnel Qualification Records (DA Form 2 and DA Form 2-1), and his promotion orders to private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3).
COUNSEL CONTENDS: In effect, that the applicant’s discharge was too harsh because the offense he committed were minor and did not involve any period of being absent without leave (AWOL) or other acts of serious misconduct.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 20 January 1976, he entered the Army for a period of 3 years. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B
(Light Weapons Infantryman).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. It also confirms that the highest rank and pay grade the applicant attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.
The applicant’s record does contain a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 25 October 1976, he accepted NJP for possessing marihuana, being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer (NCO), and dereliction of duty.
The applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program), for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. The unit commander cited the reasons for taking the action were the applicant’s lack of self-discipline; lack of promotion potential; negative attitude, which adversely affected company and platoon morale; inability to adapt to military life; failure to accept authority; and failure to meet establish standards of performance. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, consulted with legal counsel, and elected not to contest the action or to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 10 November 1976, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority. On 12 November 1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly and issued a GD after completing a total of 9 months 23 days of active military service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-37, in effect at the time, stated that individuals who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of their poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and 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, and it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the contention of the applicant and his counsel that the discharge was too harsh. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance 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.
3. The record further shows that it was only after the applicant did not conform to required standards of discipline and performance that the command appropriately determined that he did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. Further, the Board finds that the applicant and his counsel have failed to provide evidence to show that his discharge was too harsh. Therefore, it finds that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
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
__CLA__ ___MHM___ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073372 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/05 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19761112 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, para 5-37. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Failure to Maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP) |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.2400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088768C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The Personnel Qualification Record (PQR-DA Form 2-1) prepared on the applicant on 10 March 1976, which he last reviewed and authenticated on 2 December 1976, shows, in Item 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools), that he completed three years of high school at Kiwanhee High School in 1967. The instructions of Item 20 (Highest Education Level Successfully Completed) states the entry will include the education completed in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008493C070208
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. On 28 April 1977, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, and directed the issuance of a general discharge. On 16 May 1977, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37.
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 | CY2012 | 20120002461
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). Item 21 (Time Lost) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 through 21 October 1976 and from 29 November 1976 through 1 January 1977. On 4 January 1977, the applicant's commander informed him he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019579
The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully 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. There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002825
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, in effect at the time, provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008678C070205
The applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge from the United States Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, he voluntarily consented to this discharge, consulted with legal counsel, and he did not submit statements in his own behalf. On 10 November 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for a change in the narrative reason. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of...
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.