BOARD DATE:	  20 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001876 


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 an upgrade of his general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he has been a productive citizen and his current discharge impedes access to community services and opportunities. 

3.  The applicant provides no documentation to support his request.

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 5 September 1973.  He completed basic and advanced individual training as an infantryman and was stationed in Germany.  On 1 April 1974 he was advanced to private first class, pay grade E-3. 
3.  On 21 November 1974 he received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failure to obey the order of a noncommissioned officer on 22 October, being absent from his place of duty on 23 October and dereliction of duty on 29 October.

4.  On 10 December 1974 the company commander informed the applicant that he was initiating separation action under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and recommending that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The reasons cited for this action were the applicant’s inability to adapt to the military community and function in a military manner, and his open hostility.
  
5.  The applicant was informed that the final decision rested with the separation authority and he was cautioned that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge.  He was also notified that he had the right to consult with a military attorney and that he could refuse the discharge.  He could submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  The applicant voluntarily accepted the discharge and waived his right to submit a statement.  He acknowledged that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge and indicated that he had been provided an opportunity to consult with a Judge Advocate Officer. 

7.  The company commander noted that the applicant had been counseled 11 times.  He was basically inept and generally lacked adaptability.  The company commander recommended separation with a general discharge under the EDP

8.  The battalion commander concurred and the separation authority so directed.  
9.  On 6 February 1975 the applicant was separated with a general discharge.  He was assigned a separation program designator (SPD) of KNM and a reenlistment code of 3.  He had completed 1 year 5 months and 2 days of creditable service.  His awards consisted of the National Defense Service Medal and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

10.  In l974, the Department of the Army authorized the Commander in Chief, United States Army Europe to test a new discharge program, entitled 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 under the EDP.  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 be afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel.  Separation program designator (SPD) "KMN" was the appropriate designator for discharge under this test program.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

   a.  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 member’s 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.  
   
   b.  Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant states he has been a productive citizen but his current discharge impedes access to community services and opportunities.    

2.  The applicant was voluntarily discharged.  He did not have to accept the discharge, but he did so without even submitting a statement in his own behalf.

3.  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.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
 
5.  The Board does not upgrade discharges for the purpose of facilitating access to community services or other opportunities.  Each case is considered on its own merits when an applicant request a discharge upgrade.  

6.  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)                                         AR20150001876





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001876



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1