BOARD DATE: 24 March 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100022833
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests change of the reason for his honorable discharge to hardship.
2. The applicant states that while he was in training his father became very ill. Because his father had great responsibilities to the post office for two star routes, great political pressure was brought to bear to obtain the applicant's release from active duty. He needs to have the discharge changed to hardship so that he can qualify for a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loan.
3. The applicant provides copies of his correspondence to a Congressman; a personal statement dated 1 June 2010; and his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge).
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 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 it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a guarantee of training as a heavy transport operator on 28 February 1974. He never completed training.
3. He was counseled on 15 , 22, 23, and 27 March 1974 concerning his inability to become an effective Soldier as evidenced by his inability to march, accept and implement corrections, and his poor physical condition and lack of progress in that area.
4. On 27 March 1974, the applicant acknowledged notification of proposed separation under the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) with an honorable discharge and that, due to non-completion of the required active duty time, VA and other benefits normally associated with an honorable discharge would be adversely affected. He indicated that he did not desire to have counsel and did not desire to make a statement in his own behalf.
5. The separation authority approved the recommended separation and the applicant was separated with an honorable discharge on 5 April 1974. He had 1 month and 8 days of creditable service.
6. Department of the Army message with date time group 011510Z of August 1973 first published the TDP which became codified in Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5. It provided for the administrative separation of individuals who had demonstrated during the first 180 days of training that they lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become effective Soldiers. This program, known as the Trainee Discharge Program, mandated the award of an honorable discharge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant states that political pressure, because of his father's importance to the postal system, resulted in his discharge.
2. The applicant has provided no evidence to substantiate his assertion.
3. The record clearly shows that he was separated early because he lacked the requisite aptitude. Furthermore, he accepted the proposed separation without asserting any of his processing rights even though he had been specifically informed that this early separation would affect his VA and other benefits.
4. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__x______ ____x__ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
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.
_______ _ x _______ ___
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100022833
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100022833
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014327
He failed to complete his initial training. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. His record is void of documentation supporting his contention he should have received a hardship discharge; however, the record shows that on 17 September 1982, his commander initially recommended that the applicant be separated under the TDP on 17 September 1982.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000015
The applicant states that upon his release from jail, his chain of command offered that he could restart basic training or receive an honorable discharge. On 16 April 1980, his company commander informed him he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-33, the TDP, with an honorable discharge. The evidence of record confirms he was discharged under the TDP due to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085406C070212
Accordingly, on 4 September 1981, the applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge. Item 26 (Separation Code) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry “JET.” Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JET” is “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) Marginal or nonproductive” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33f(2). The regulation essentially...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011655
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was discharged for medical disability. The applicant provides no additional evidence. On 10 May 1974, the applicants immediate commander advised the applicant he intended to recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Department of the Army (DA) Message Date Time Group 011510Z, dated August 1973, Subject: Evaluation and Discharge of Enlistees Before 180 Active Duty Days, later incorporated into Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000461
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show the reason for his discharge as medical. On 11 October 1974, he was counseled concerning his difficulties in working with the trainees of his platoon. The regulation essentially requires that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual training, on the job, or service school training prior to award of a military occupational specialty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075510C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 5 March 1985, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. Previously, Army Regulation 635-200, the pertinent paragraph in chapter 5, provided that commanders could expeditiously discharge members under the TDP who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058070C070420
Accordingly, the applicant was honorably released from active duty on 12 December 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33f(1), under the Trainee Discharge Program, and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. However, evidence of record shows that the applicant was dropped from the “71G10 Course” on 5 November 1980. The applicant’s contention that she was denied the right to appear before a board to stay in the USAR is not supported by the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022340
In this form an Army medical official stated, "the enlisted member should be considered for discharge and indicated a Mental Hygiene evaluation would soon follow, along with the necessary TDP paperwork. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33 (TDP ) in effect at the time, states that the TDP program provides that commanders may expeditiously separate members who lack the necessary motivation, discipline, ability, or aptitude to become a productive soldier when these individuals were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003116
On 7 January 1982, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-33 (TDP). Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribes the specific authorities and reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The evidence of record further shows the applicant underwent a psychiatric...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009332
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, a medical discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant received counseling on 18 December 1978 for lack of motivation and showing no desire to continue training.