IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 June 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110023200
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 upgrade of his general discharge.
2. The applicant states he needs an honorable discharge so he can receive medical benefits.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
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 on 13 October 1978, completed training as a food service specialist, was stationed in Germany with an artillery unit, and was advanced to pay grade E-2.
3. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 15 on three occasions, twice for absence from his place of duty and once for disturbing the peace by fighting.
4. On 29 September 1979, the Battery Commander recommended the applicant for separation with a general discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and notified the applicant of his administrative processing rights. In addition to the NJP's, the commander noted the applicant had received remedial counseling on six occasions.
5. The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged his rights, and indicated that he would submit a statement in his own behalf; however, none is contained in the available records.
6. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed a general discharge be issued.
7. On 19 October 1979, the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5 for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 5, as then in effect, provided for the 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.
b. 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
3. 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) AR20110023200
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110023200
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016223
On 4 May 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge action and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. On 24 May 1979, he was accordingly discharged. The pertinent paragraph in chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011846
The applicant claims that if he had received proper psychiatric treatment his behavior would not have deteriorated, and if he had been counseled on the ramifications of a general discharge, he would not have accepted it. On 7 September 1979 the applicant's commander forwarded a recommendation to discharge the applicant under the EDP. 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.
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010978
He also states he was advised he could request an upgrade of his discharge to honorable 6 months after his discharge date. The commander also informed him that he intended to recommend he receive a General Discharge Certificate and advised him of his rights to consult with legal counsel to discuss the ramifications of this recommendation and to submit a statement in his own behalf, to decline the discharge, or to waive any of the aforementioned rights. On 2 January 1979, the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023175
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). An AE Form 113-10-R (Notification of Pending Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) Discharge and Acknowledgment) shows, on 8 November 1979, his commander notified him he was initiating action to discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31, with a GD. Such personnel were issued a general or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010122
On 27 March 1979, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of failing to meet and maintain acceptable standards, lack of minimum self-discipline to handle personal affairs and to perform his duties as a Soldier, and incidents of minor misconduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline. On...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009757
The applicant requests his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 24 December 1979, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200. Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct or performance of duty for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017408
The applicant requests that his honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. 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. The applicant's commander then forwarded a recommendation to discharge the applicant under the EDP.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017212
The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable conditions for the period ending 22 October 1979 be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. On 4 October 1979, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service due to his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-31, and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). There is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019073
The applicant requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 25 February 1980, the applicant's unit commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and that he was recommending the applicant receive a GD. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was separated under the provisions of...