| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Antoinette Farley | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general, discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was told that his discharge was temporary and it would automatically be upgraded. He further states that he had requested copies of his medical records, but was told they could not be found.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 1973. He completed basic training and entered advanced individual training (AIT) on 22 October 1973. While in AIT the applicant on 29 October 1973, accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit on 23 October 1973. His punishment included forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 1 month and restriction and extra duty for
7 days.
On 28 October 1973, the applicant resumed AIT. On 31 November 1973, he was awarded military occupational specialty 36K (Tactual Wire Operations Specialist). On 31 January 1974, he was transferred to Fort Kobbe, Panama for duty in his MOS.
On 9 August 1974, he accepted a second NJP for being absent from his place
of duty and willfully disobeying a lawful order by his superior noncommissioned officer on 8 August 1974. His punishment included forfeiture of $75.00 pay and reduction to pay grade E-1 and restriction and extra duty for 14 days.
On 28 September 1974, the applicant was AWOL from Fort Kobbe, Panama.
On 14 November 1974, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of
being AWOL from 28 September to 30 October 1974. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months. On 27 November 1974, the applicant was returned to the United States to serve his sentence at the Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, Kansas.
On 19 February 1975, the applicant transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for duty in his MOS.
On 20 August 1975, he accepted a third NJP for being absent from his place
of duty from 16 July to 12 August 1975. His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-2.
On the same day the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate him with a GD under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5, (the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of his rights and was informed of the impact of a GD, under honorable conditions. He voluntarily consented to the discharge, but declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 11 September 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be given a general discharge.
On 16 September 1975, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5, the EDP. He had completed 1 year,
8 months and 14 days of creditable active service and had 133 days of lost time due to AWOL or confinement.
Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, as then in effect,
provided, in pertinent part, for the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet
acceptable standards could be separated. Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel. The EDP did not apply to Reserve or Army National Guard personnel on any type of active duty training. Separation program designator (SPD) "KMN" was the appropriate designator for discharge under this test program.
There is no available evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board, for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Department of Defense, Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.
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. 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
JNS RWA RKS DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084007 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003.08.21 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/09/16 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 5. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A110.00 |
| 2. | A71:00 |
| 3. | A123.0100 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008115
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 23 May 1977, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), with a GD. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon discharge on 24 June 1977, shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010667
On 11 November 1975, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), by reason of his numerous violations of the UCMJ, his failure to respond to numerous adverse counseling sessions, and his failure to demonstrate potential for advancement to the rank of private first class/pay grade E-3. On 11...
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 | CY1997 | 9709387C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709387
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609953C070209
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. On 19 August 1975 the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002723
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states he was young and influenced by the men returning from Vietnam. The commanders request for discharge was forwarded through the chain of command to the approving authority.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012610
On 13 January 1976, the separation authority approved the applicants separation under the provisions of the EDP, and directed the applicant receive a GD. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing under the provisions of the EDP was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017197
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 13 May 1975, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to separate the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel) under the expeditious discharge program (EDP).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014994C070206
The applicant further states, that when he was being discharged from service his First Sergeant told him that after 6 months his discharge would be upgraded to an honorable discharge. It also shows that at the time of discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 3 months and 13 days of active military service. There is no evidence in his military record nor has the applicant provided any evidence to support his allegations.