| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant offers no argument or evidence to support his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 10 February 1975, for a period of 3 years, assignment to the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii and training as an engineer equipment repairman. He completed his training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and was transferred to Hawaii on 9 April 1975. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 10 June 1975.
On 5 December 1975, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 (suspended for 30 days), a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 5 January 1976, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, due to apathy and his continual shirking of responsibilities. He further indicated that he was recommending that he receive a general discharge.
On 12 January 1976, NJP was again imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily consented to be discharged under the EDP with a general discharge. He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he asserted that he was bitter with the Army because he did not feel that the training he received was what he was promised. He also indicated that while all of the incidents for which he was counseled may be irresponsible, he believed that they were, in plain part, accidental, and that his negative feeling towards the Army contributed to them. He also regretted that he could not adapt to Army life or fulfill his end of his contract.
The commander initiated the separation action on 13 January 1976 and indicated that the basis for his recommendation was the applicant’s disciplinary record, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, his repeated failure to go to his place of duty, defective attitude and continual shirking of responsibilities. He further indicated that the applicant required constant supervision and displayed an inability to complete even the simplest tasks.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 2 February 1976 and directed that he be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 20 February 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, under the EDP for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service. He had served 1 year and 11 days of total active service.
There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
The Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973. In a message dated 8 November 1974 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP. The program provided for the separation of soldiers who’s acceptability, performance of duty and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the Army. Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identifies them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders to separate them under the EDP. 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.
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. 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.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
4. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board finds that his service was not fully honorable and finds that there is no basis to upgrade his discharge to fully honorable.
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
__mvt___ __jhl ____ __rtd ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075644 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1976/02/20 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH5 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | EDP |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 730 | 144.7800/A78.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062430C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his General discharge be upgraded to an Honorable discharge. Otherwise, a commander was required to separate soldiers under the provisions of the regulation which in most cases resulted in an other than honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004070
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. On 4 March 1976, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-37, and the EDP. 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001056531C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On the same day, the commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). Otherwise, a commander was required to separate soldiers under other provisions of the regulation which in most cases resulted in an other than...
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 | CY2011 | 20110006127
On 30 September 1975, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-37, and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). There is no evidence in the available records to show he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018061
He advised the applicant that he was recommending a general under honorable conditions discharge and that he had the right to decline the discharge and to submit a statement in his own behalf. 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 was serving in the pay grade of E-1 when discharge proceedings were initiated against him and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013484
On 15 March 1977, his immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). On 6 April 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of his inability to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029237
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. On 20 December 1976, the applicants commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37...