IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 February 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100023037
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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
2. The applicant states he was informed his GD would eventually be upgraded to an HD.
3. The applicant provides no documentary 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 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 applicants military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 March 1974. He served in military occupational specialty 72E (Communication Center Specialist) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2.
3. On 24 June 1975, the applicants unit commander notified him that he was initiating action to recommend the applicant be separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), based on the following:
a. his unwillingness to meet acceptable standards required of a Soldier;
b. his poor attitude, lack of motivation, and lack of self discipline; and
c. his inability to accept instructions or directions.
4. After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects by his unit commander, the applicant voluntarily consented to be discharged from the Army and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.
5. On 29 July 1975, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge and directed that he receive a GD. 7 August 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
6. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge shows he had completed a total of 1 years, 3 months and 15 days of active military service. It also confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200, and that he received a GD.
7. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-37 of the version of the regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge provided for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both). This policy applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation, or self discipline for military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.
9. 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 members 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 AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his GD should be upgraded to an HD because he was informed it would be eventually, was carefully considered. However, 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.
2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, as a result of his unwillingness to meet acceptable standards required of a Soldier; poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self discipline; and inability to accept instructions or directions.
3. The evidence of record in this case confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
4. The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, his inability to adapt to military service clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
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) AR20100023037
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100023037
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
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 | 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 | CY2011 | 20110000445
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 2 October 1975, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and that he was recommending the applicant receive a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003725C070205
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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. The applicant's record of service included adverse counseling statements and two nonjudicial punishments.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011845
The applicant requests an upgrade of his General Discharge (GD), under honorable conditions to a fully Honorable Discharge (HD). On 3 June 1975, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant that he intended to recommend his discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)) with a GD, under honorable conditions. The separation authority approved the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005902
His condition, he states, has not changed since he was discharged from military service. Individuals discharge under the expeditious discharge program could be awarded an honorable or general discharge certificate, as appropriate. Absent any evidence that the applicant suffered from a disabling mental condition at the time of his discharge, his contentions alone are not sufficiently mitigating to support an upgrade of his discharge and a change to the narrative reason for his separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012799
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The applicants military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 25 November 1974.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074885C070403
There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade to his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. Further, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027034
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100027034 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017117
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). Paragraph 5-37 of the version of the regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge provided for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both). However, his inability to adapt to military service clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.