| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the reason for her discharge be changed in order to allow her to receive government benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that in view of changes in Army policy due in part to sexual discrimination and harassment over the past few years, her case was one of quieting the whistleblower. This resulted in the labeling of her performance as unproductive, although her performance as a student was above marginal.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 27 April 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. She completed basic training at Fort McClellan, Alabama, and was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia, to attend advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 72E (Telecommunications Center Specialist).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes her acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions. In addition, she received extensive counseling by members of her chain of command in regard to her duty performance and minor disciplinary infractions.
On 16 September 1977, the applicant’s unit commander informed her that separation action was being initiated against her under the provisions of paragraph 5-39, Army Regulation 635-200, based on her inability to accept instructions and directions. On 19 September 1977, after being advised of the reasons for her separation and the rights available to her, she elected to consult counsel and to make a statement in her own behalf.
In a 3rd endorsement he prepared to recommend the applicant be discharged, her battalion commander indicated that the applicant was adamant about staying in the Army, and had gone to great lengths to solicit statements in her behalf from many people, mainly her peers. He further commented that the fact the applicant was a friendly person and got along well with her peers was not in question. However, she had established a pattern that made her value to the Army highly questionable. He also stated that she had received correctional training and two Article 15’s, and that her attitude toward authority had caused her to repeatedly question the qualifications of her superiors. He also indicated that the applicant’s unit commander had indicated that he would not want the applicant as a member of a TO&E unit were he the commander.
The battalion commander also confirmed that he had met with the applicant’s parents, who had traveled from Pennsylvania in order to determine why the applicant was being recommended for discharge. He indicated that he spent several hours with her parents trying to convince them that the applicant had not met the standards expected of a soldier. Further, that it was the professional opinion of her noncommissioned officers and her unit commander that further duty in the Army would be detrimental to both her, and to those who would have to depend on her in a time of crisis. He concluded that as much as he would like to comply with the request of the applicant and her parents that her retention in the Army be recommended, he could not in good conscience do so. Therefore, he recommended that she be discharged as recommended.
On 14 October 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-39, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that she receive an honorable discharge. On 14 October 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of her discharge, she had completed a total of just 5 months and 18 days of active military service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-39, in effect at the time, provided the policy and procedure for the separation of enlisted personnel under the trainee discharge program. It provided for the separation of enlisted personnel prior to the award of an MOS with less than 180 total days of creditable military service for one of the following reasons: failure to adapt; inability to meet training standards; or character and behavior characteristics that were not compatible with continued service.
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 request that the reason for her discharge be changed based on current standards in order to allow her to obtain government benefits. However, it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support this requested relief.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was honorably separated under the provisions of the trainee discharge program. Her separation was based on her inability to accept instructions/directions, which resulted in her failing to meet training standards. 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, it finds that the reason for her discharge was proper and equitable, and it accurately reflects the basis for her separation. Thus, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
3. The applicant is advised that her entitlement to government benefits is determined by whatever agency administers the specific benefit in question, and not necessarily by the Army. Therefore, any questions or claim of entitlement to a specific benefit should be addressed to the responsible agency.
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__ __MHM__ __RKS__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073897 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/01 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1977/10/14 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C5 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | TDP |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008906C070205
The company commander counseled the applicant on 3 July 1977 on his poor record of conduct and performance. The applicant was counseled again on 24 July 1977 by the unit counselor. On 4 August 1977, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, paragraph 5-39 for marginal or non-productive performance (Trainee Discharge Program) with an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004957C070205
Evidence of record shows the applicant declined a separation physical examination three months later on 7 June 1977. There is also no evidence of record to show he was ever medically unfit to perform his duties. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error now under consideration on 16 June 1977; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 15 June 1980.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013606
The reasons given by the commander were that the applicant: * could not or would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life * could not meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of a lack of motivation * had demonstrated character and behavioral characteristics not satisfactory with continued service 5. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes), then in effect, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020166
There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Individuals discharged under this provision of the regulation were issued an honorable or a general discharge. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088074C070403
These soldiers must have voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, Army National Guard, or United States Army Reserve, and still in either basic combat training or advanced individual training, and could not have completed no more than 179 days active duty or initial active duty for training on their current enlistment by the date of discharge. However, the applicant’s medical records were not available to the Board, and the applicant’s MPRJ contained no medical treatment records or other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010657
There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed with any unfitting medical condition prior to his discharge on 9 March 1976. There is no medical evidence of record that shows the applicant had any medical condition prior to his discharge on 9 March 1976. There is also no evidence of record to show he was ever medically unfit to perform his duties.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013833
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060013833 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. On 28 February 1975, the applicant was notified of her pending separation under the provisions of Department of the Army (DA) Message DAPE-MPE 011510Z August 1973 Subject: Evaluation and Discharge of Enlistees Before 180...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013889
On 13 November 1990, the applicant requested separation from the U.S. Army under paragraph 5-8, Army Regulation 635-200. On 14 December 1990, consistent with the recommendations of the applicant's chain of command, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-8, for the inability to perform prescribed duties due to parenthood with an honorable characterization of service. Every case is individually decided based upon...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081254C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Had he not consented to his discharge and continued to demonstrate that he could not and would not meet acceptable standards required of all enlisted personnel in the U.S. Army, his conduct could have led to separation under other provisions of laws and regulations. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, the Board determined that his quality of service did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003276
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was discharged for medical reasons and correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period ending 6 May 1977 to show his separation program designator (SPD) code as "SFJ" instead of "JEM." Army Regulation 635-5-1 provides that SPD code "SFJ" pertains to enlisted Soldiers discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Personnel Separations-Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or...