RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 14 August 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070004470
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.
| |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano | |Director |
| |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Michael J. Flynn | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Larry W. Racster | |Member |
| |Mr. Donald W. Steenfott | |Member |
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge be upgraded.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) secondary to personal trauma led to the events that resulted in his
discharge.
3. The applicant provides no additional evidence.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s 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 it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant was born on 13 January 1957. He enlisted in the Regular
Army on 22 April 1974. He completed basic training and advanced individual
training and was awarded military occupational specialty 45P (Sheridan
Turret Mechanic).
3. On 1 August 1975, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent
without leave (AWOL) from on or about 30 June 1975 to on or about 27 July
1975.
4. In November 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for
unlawfully possessing some quantity of marijuana.
5. On 24 November 1975, the applicant received a mental status evaluation
and was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from
wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to
understand and participate in board proceedings.
6. In December 1975, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action
on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph
5-37. The commander cited the applicant’s adverse attitude toward
continued military service and lack of motivation to successfully complete
his current enlistment.
7. In December 1975, the applicant acknowledged notification of the
proposed discharge. He voluntarily consented to discharge. He waived his
right to submit a statement in his behalf. He understood that if he were
issued a general discharge under honorable conditions that he might expect
to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.
8. On 5 December 1975, the appropriate authority approved the
recommendation and directed the applicant be given a general discharge
under honorable conditions.
9. On 12 December 1975, the applicant was discharged with a
characterization of service of under honorable conditions (a general
discharge) in pay grade E-1. The record copy of the DD Form 214 (Report of
Separation from Active Duty) does not indicate the authority and reason for
discharge. He had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 24 days of
creditable active service and had 27 days of lost time.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel. At the time, paragraph 5-37 provided
that members who completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of
continuous active service on their first enlistment and who demonstrated
that they could not 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 could be discharged. It provided for the
expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board
or punitive action became necessary. No member would be discharged under
this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.
Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was predicated upon proper
military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s
current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of
service, grade and general aptitude.
11. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides 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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although the applicant contended that PTSD secondary to personal trauma
led to the events that resulted in his discharge, he provided no evidence
to show what that personal trauma was and no explanation of what it was.
2. It is noted that the applicant’s November 1975 mental status evaluation
found him to be mentally responsible and to able to distinguish right from
wrong and to adhere to the right.
3. The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.
4. It is noted that the applicant was 17 years old at the time he
enlisted; however, he successfully completed basic training and advanced
individual training and therefore knew what the Army’s standards of conduct
were. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears the type of
discharge given was appropriate considering the applicant’s overall
military record.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__mjf___ __lwr___ __dws___ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the
existence of a probable error or injustice. 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.
__Michael J. Flynn____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20070004470 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20070814 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY |Ms. Mitrano |
|ISSUES 1. |110.00 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014699
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge under honorable conditions was carefully considered; however, the evidence of record is insufficient to grant relief in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023350
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 29 August 1978 subsequent to a review by the Command Judge Advocate for legal sufficiency, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service and directed receipt of a General Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013891
On 21 August 1975, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 (Failure to Maintain Acceptable Standards for Retention - Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). The applicant's commander recommended he be discharged from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to his poor attitude and lack of self-discipline. The evidence of record shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020820
His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 13 October 1977 with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitation. Additionally, the evidence shows he was promoted to PV2/E-2 on 8 September 1977.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018702
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003538
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 | 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 | 20090005938
The psychiatrist stated the applicant should be separated from the military in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 under the Expeditious Discharge Program. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062407C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his administrative discharge be changed to a medical discharge. On 27 April 1977, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, Expeditious Discharge Program. The type of discharge given was appropriate considering the applicant’s mental evaluation diagnoses and his overall military record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710005
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of errors on his DD Form 214, i. e., his rank, the authority and reason for his discharge, the related occupation code, his secondary military occupational specialty (MOS), the time lost, his medals and decorations and his last name. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records show: On 4 August 1978, at Fort Sheridan, IL he was discharged with a characterization of service of “under honorable conditions” (a general discharge), in pay grade E-2,...