Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081254C070215
Original file (2002081254C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 12 June 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002081254

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. Joyce A. Hall Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. Chairperson
Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast Member
Mr. John P. Infante Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: He makes no additional comments.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

On 17 February 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army with parental consent for 3 years.

On 5 March 1977, while assigned to Company B, 17th Battalion, 4th Training Brigade, Fort Knox, Kentucky, for basic combat training the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for assault. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $65.00 pay for 1 month and 12 days restriction and extra duty.

On 22 June 1977, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully and without proper authority damaging a water fountain, which was the property of the United States. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $80.00 pay for 1 month.

On 25 April 1978, while assigned to a unit located in Germany, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to obey a lawful regulation: (1) failed to have a valid U.S. Army Europe Driver's License in his possession; (2) operated a motor vehicle without proper liability insurance; and (3) operated a motor vehicle which was not registered with competent authority. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 (reduction suspended for 60 days).

Between 16 August 1978 and 11 October 1978, the applicant was counseled on five separate occasions for showing up late for company formation, for poor military appearance on two separate occasions, reporting for duty late, and about the safety of an M16A1 and the discharging of blanks directly at personnel.

On 18 October 1978, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully appropriating a
1½ ton truck, property of the United States Government. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 60 days), reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended for 60 days), and 30 days extra duty.

Between 28 October 1978 and 11 November 1978, the applicant was counseled on two separate occasions for missing physical training and for reporting to work unshaven.

On 8 November 1978, the battalion chaplain recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service for his own good and for the good of the service.

On 16 November 1978, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to go to his prescribed appointed place of duty, to wit: extra duty and for wrongfully engaging
in a fistfight in public. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade
E-1 and a forfeiture of $100.00 pay.

On 27 November 1978, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, Expeditious Discharge Program. The commander cited the applicant's NJPs and his numerous counseling sessions. The commander also cited that the applicant had shown an inability to accept instructions or directions and a lack of cooperation with his peers and superiors.

The applicant acknowledged notification of the action and voluntarily consented to the discharge. He submitted no statements in his own behalf.

On 30 November 1978, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The pertinent paragraph 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 has demonstrated that they could or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharge. It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before board or punitive action becomes necessary. No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provided that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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 applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The Board noted that the applicant voluntarily consented to his discharge. 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.

3. The Board also noted that the applicant showed an inability to accept instructions or directions and a lack of cooperation with his peers and superiors. In addition, his poor attitude and lack of motivation and self-discipline showed further efforts towards rehabilitation were considered useless.

4. The applicant's behavior clearly demonstrated that he had no desire to utilize the constructive counseling that was provided to him by his immediate supervisors. His numerous counseling statements he was given bear this out.

5. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, the Board determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge.

6. 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.

7. 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

__ro____ __ep____ __ji____ DENY APPLICATION



                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records



INDEX

CASE ID AR2002081254
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20030612
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 144.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015371

    Original file (20130015371.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 February 1978, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) in accordance with chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). The applicant's immediate commander recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of the EDP and the separation authority approved his discharge and directed that he be furnished a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069723C070402

    Original file (2002069723C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. DETERMINATION : The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008296

    Original file (20080008296.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander stated he was recommending that the applicant’s service be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. Individuals discharged under the provisions of this paragraph may be awarded an honorable or general discharge. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013525

    Original file (20080013525.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 October 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service and directed that he receive a General Discharge Certificate. On 23 October 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003538

    Original file (20130003538.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 6 January 1977, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) with a general discharge. In view of the above, there is insufficient substantive evidence to upgrade his discharge to an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052915C070420

    Original file (2001052915C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 20090009337

    Original file (20090009337.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 14 August 1979 in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 (EDP), for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention, and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Considering that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073141C070403

    Original file (2002073141C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | 2003091014C070212

    Original file (2003091014C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 3 August 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and the Expeditious Discharge Program. 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 Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018702

    Original file (20090018702.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 February 1976, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Although the applicant contends he received a hardship discharge and was informed it would be honorable, the evidence of record shows he acknowledged...