BOARD DATE: 26 August 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140001072
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, in effect, that her general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states a general discharge is the worst discharge that can be given for an administrative discharge and it means that she screwed up and got kicked out which is unjust.
3. The applicant provides copies of her military personnel and medical records.
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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 1978 for a period of 3 years, training as an administrative specialist and assignment to Fort Lewis, Washington. She completed one-station unit training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and was transferred to Fort Lewis.
3. She was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 23 May 1979 and was transferred to Germany on 27 November 1979 for assignment to a Regional Personnel Center in Wiesbaden, Germany.
4. The facts and circumstances surrounding her administrative discharge are not present in the available records as they were loaned to the Department of Veterans Affairs in Winston-Salem, North Carolina in 2010.
5. However, her DD Form 214 shows that on 11 July 1980, she was discharged under honorable conditions in the pay grade of E-2 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31h(2) and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) due to failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. She had served 2 years, 1 month, and 19 days of active service.
6. There is no evidence in the available records to show that she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
7. The Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973. In a message, dated 8 November 1974, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP. The program provided for the separation of Soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the Army. Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identified them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. Soldiers considered for separation under this expanded program had to agree to separation under this program. Soldiers who did not agree to separation under this provision were not exempt from separation under another provision of the regulation.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicants administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of the applicants rights. Accordingly, her discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
2. The applicant was discharged in the pay grade of E-2 due to failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.
3. Without the facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge it is difficult at best to determine with any degree of certainty exactly what happened in her case that led to her discharge. However, she could have disagreed with the separation action at the time. She has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the characterization of her service was unjust.
4. Accordingly, it must be presumed that she was properly released from active duty in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time.
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) AR20140001072
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140001072
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007623
The applicant requests that her general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. On 5 April 1979, the commander also notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) due to her inability to adapt socially to military life. There is no evidence in the available record to show that she ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an...
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 | CY2007 | 20070011562
On 16 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-31, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and ordered the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitation 11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015030
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 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. However, her records do contain a DD Form 214 which shows that she was honorably REFRAD on 5 November 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011427C070208
All of the administrative separation paperwork is no longer available in the record; however, on 11 December 1980, the applicant's commander recommended her separation with a general discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014870
The applicant requests that her general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. Accordingly, she was released from active duty under honorable conditions on 25 November 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31h (1) and the Expeditious Discharge Program. 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 | 20090001018
On 29 April 1979, the applicant was recommended for separation with a general discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). On 25 May 1979, the applicant was discharge, with a general under honorable conditions discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, (EDP), after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 6 days of creditable active service. There is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's contention that her behavior was the result of sexual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088924C070403
There is no evidence of record, or evidence submitted by the applicant, that she was recommended or promoted to pay grade E-4. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with her application, that she was advanced to E-4 prior to her discharge on 22 September 1981 or that she was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003107
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. On 28 June 1979, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31, under the expeditious discharge program (EDP). There is no evidence that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004508
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was honorably discharged for medical reasons. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation requirements and approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, paragraph 5-31, and directed that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate. It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to document a...