| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey . | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Robert J. Osborn | Member | ||
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast . | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that at the time of his discharge he was told that he could get his discharge upgraded from GD to an HD.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 May 1977, he entered active duty in the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Benning, Georgia. Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. It does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudical punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following five separate occasions for the offense indicated: 4 August 1977, theft of a camera;
8 August 1977, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; December 1977, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 6 January 1978, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and 18 January 1978, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.
On 18 February 1978, the unit commander notified the applicant that action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program-EDP), Army Regulation 635-200, was being initiated. The unit commander cited the applicant’s lack of motivation, immaturity, and complete disregard for rules and regulations as the basis for taking the action.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification from his commander and elected to voluntarily consent to discharge from the Army. He also chose to waive his right to submit a statement in his own behalf. The applicant also acknowledged that he had been counseled in regard to the prejudice he could face in civilian life as a result of receiving a GD and that he was provided the opportunity to consult with legal counsel.
On 21 February 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that he receive a GD. On 15 March 1978, he was discharged accordingly. At the time of his separation, the applicant had completed a total of 9 months and 15 days of creditable active service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37, then in effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals under the EDP. This provision provided for the separation of soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.
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 contention that he was informed he could get his GD upgraded to HD, and while this is true it is not an automatic action. The 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 submits an application to either the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board. If either Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable, it would recommend a change.
2. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly notified of the separation action initiated against him and after being afforded the rights associated with an EDP discharge, to include the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, he voluntarily consented to the discharge.
3. The evidence of record also confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time, and that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.
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
_ECP___ ___RO__ __RJO__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2007 | 20070005167C071029
On 29 March 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of the EDP, and directed the applicant receive a GD. 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, 5 months and 9 days of active military service, and accruing 10 days of time lost due to AWOL. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing under...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2014 | 20140020854
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 May 1977, the applicant's commander informed him he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), and that he was recommending he receive a GD Certificate. ___________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080746C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was suffering from alcoholism at the time of separation. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002080746SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030729TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19780508DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 5DISCHARGE REASONA40.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004337C070206
The applicant’s military record indicates that he accepted NJP for being AWOL for 5 days, however, the particulars are missing from his file. 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. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board requesting a change in discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009337
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...