| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was suffering from alcoholism at the time of separation. He has been alcohol-free since he entered a detoxification program and lived at a halfway house for 6 months in 1982. He believes that alcoholism is a disease and that his illness should be taken into consideration in the upgrade of his discharge. The applicant submits in support of his request a character reference letter from a mental health/addictions counselor. The counselor states that he did not work with the applicant professionally, but he has known the applicant and his family for the past 16 years. He is knowledgeable that, 20 years ago, the applicant entered a residential treatment program and that he has been sober since that time. He knows the applicant has been steadily employed; he has a stable family life; he is a dedicated husband and father and productive member of his community and church. The applicant has a beautiful home and he has helped others in the process of recovery from addiction.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 22 September 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 16E (Hawk Fire Control Crewman). On 18 November 1977, he was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas, for advanced individual training (AIT).
On 8 December 1977, while attending AIT, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully disobeying a lawful order given by a noncommissioned officer. His punishment included the forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 1 month and 7 days of restriction and extra duty.
The applicant completed the training requirements and he was awarded MOS 16E and assigned to Germany on 27 January 1978.H
On 6 April 1978, the applicant underwent both a medical examination and a mental status evaluation that determined he was qualified for separation.
On 20 April 1978, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), with a GD. He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant's repeated negligence in the performance of his duties; his unwilling attitude towards learning his assigned duties; his failure to meet the standards or expectations of the unit; and his lack of productiveness and motivation.
On 21 April 1978, the commander indicated in the recommendation for the applicant's separation that the applicant had been counseled on ten separate occasions. The counseling statements are no longer contained in the applicant's record. The commander also stated that the primary reason for his recommendation was the applicant was unable to adapt socially and emotionally.
The applicant's records do not contain a statement that shows he consulted with legal counsel. However, his records do contain a statement, dated 21 April 1978, that shows he acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 26 April 1978, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued a GD. The approval authority also states that he personally spoke with the applicant and he was convinced the applicant was unsuitable for the military.
On 8 May 1978, the applicant was separated with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP). He had completed a total of 7 months and 17 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect, at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-31 of this regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of those individuals who failed to maintain acceptable standards for retention or for those determined to be unable to adapt socially and/or emotionally to military life. Under this regulation, a GD or an HD was considered appropriate. Further, the regulation then in effect stipulated that a GD would be issued if the commander initiating the action for separation recommended it and the soldier had the opportunity to receive legal counsel.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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. Although, the available records do not contain a statement indicating the applicant received legal counsel, he would have consulted with legal counsel prior to signing the statement that he voluntarily signed consenting to discharge under the provisions of chapter 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP). The Board presumes administrative regularity and the applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.
3. There are no medical records available that indicate the applicant had an alcohol abuse problem while he was in the military. Likewise, none of the applicant's separation paperwork cites drunkenness as one of the reasons for the contemplated separation. However, the applicant, as a soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies. If in fact, he abused alcohol, he knowingly risked his military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___mkp__ __wtm___ __teo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080746 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030729 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19780508 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chap 5 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.4000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052915C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: On 3 September 1978, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program(EDP)), with a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012234
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 25 September 1978, the commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, 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 honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007842
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 8 August 1978, she was notified by her immediate commander that action was being initiated to discharge her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)) with a General Discharge Certificate. On 8 August 1978, she acknowledged the notification of her proposed discharge from the Army.
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 | 20090016654
On 23 January 1980, the applicants commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents) serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 2014000220
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to upgrade his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. He provides a copy of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision letter from his previous application. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, prescribed the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002220
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to upgrade his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. He provides a copy of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision letter from his previous application. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, prescribed the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073141C070403
He was returned to Fort Myer on 11 October and on 13 October 1978, the suspended portion of his punishment for the NJP imposed on 27 July 1978 was vacated and he was reduced to the pay grade of E-3. On 9 January 1979, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011384C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200 (EDP) after completing 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days of active military service. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006320
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. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined...