IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  29 January 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140009982 


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 correction of the entry in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  

2.  He states he was forced out of the military unjustly.  He was not liked because he was one of the few minorities in his platoon.  He was always given guard duty, put on detail, and made to clean the barracks for no reason.  He asked to be transferred to another unit, and they would not let him go.  His orders to Germany were cancelled.  He was a good young Soldier under the wrong leaders.  He is a professional now, and he served his country with pride.  He made some bad choices in the situation he was in.  

3.  He provides no additional evidence in support of his application.  

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.  On 25 March 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed initial entry training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  

3.  On 29 January 1981, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 to 19 January 1981.  

4.  On 26 May and 9 August 1981, he was counseled by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) for failing to comply with instructions.  

5.  On 30 October 1981, he received NJP for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  He appealed the punishment but later withdrew his appeal.  

6.  On 15 November 1981 and again on 5 January 1982, he received NJP for willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior NCO.  

7.  On 6 January 1982, his troop commander notified him he was initiating action to discharge him from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), with his service characterized as under honorable conditions.  His commander stated the reasons for the proposed action were his inability to adapt to the military way of life, lack of discipline, and poor duty performance.  His commander advised him of his right to decline the separation and to submit a statement in his behalf.  

8.  In a memorandum to the separation authority, dated 6 January 1982, the troop commander stated the applicant had continued to be a discipline and motivation problem since his rehabilitative transfer from a military police unit.  He required constant supervision and could not be relied upon to accomplish even menial tasks.  He possessed zero motivation, initiative, or interest in his duties or the military.  

9.  On 11 January 1982, he consented to separation and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he could, prior to the date his separation was approved, withdraw his voluntary consent.  He further acknowledged that if he declined to accept the separation voluntarily, at a future time he could be subject to separation under other provisions of law or regulation.  
10.  On 27 January 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation and directed his transfer to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to complete his service obligation.  The separation authority determined his service would be characterized as under honorable conditions.  

11.  On 4 February 1982, he was released from active duty and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training).  His DD Form 214 shows in:

* item 24 (Character of Service) – "HONORABLE"
* item 25 (Separation Authority) – "Para 5-31h (1), AR 635-200"
* item 26 (Separation Code) – "LGH"
* item 28 – "Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) – Failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention."

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 of the version in effect at the time provided for the EDP.  The EDP provided for the separation of Soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fell 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 the EDP had to agree to separation under this program.  Soldiers who did not agree to separation under the EDP were not exempt from separation under another provision of the regulation.  An honorable or general discharge was required.  

13.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators (SPD)), in effect at the time, listed the specific authorities – regulatory, statutory, or other directive – and reasons for separation from active duty, active duty for training, or full-time training duty.  SPD code "LGH" applied to individuals discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-9.  The narrative reason associated with this discharge authority was "Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) – Failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention."  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of the entry in item 28 of his DD Form 214.  


2.  The evidence of record shows he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations, that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record supports the reason and authority for his separation.

3.  Although he implies that he was subjected to discrimination because he was one of the few minorities in his platoon, his military service records do not contain evidence corroborating his claim and he has not provided such evidence. 

4.  He voluntarily agreed to be separated under the EDP.  Once his separation under the program was approved, no other reason for separation was applicable.  The entry in item 28 of his DD Form 214 is correct.  In the absence of evidence showing error or injustice in the narrative reason for his separation, there is no basis for granting the 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)                                         AR20140009982





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140009982



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1