ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 October 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20160013735


APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of her previous request for correction of her 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as follows: 

*	Block 24 (Separation Code) from LGH to another code
*	Block 27 (Reentry (RE) Code) from 4 to a higher code
*	Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) remove "Failure to Maintain 
Acceptable Standards for Retention" to "Ready Release due to EDP (Expeditious 
Discharge Program)"

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Department of Veterans Affairs printouts
*	Letter from the National Personnel Records Center

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number 
AR20080008937 on 3 September 2008.  

2.  The applicant states she qualifies for VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) because 
of the eligibility for certain households who meet certain income requirements may be 
eligible for health benefits.  She was granted a service-connection for an injury that 
occurred while on active duty.  She should be able to receive benefits from the VA.  She 
wants her records show she was released under honorable conditions.  The Expeditious 
Discharge Program was used in 1982 for overcrowding of Soldiers on active duty.  She 
was not convicted by a court-martial. The separation and RE codes should be 
corrected. 



3.  Review of the applicant's service records shows: 

	a.  She enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 1 April 1981.  She was 
academically dropped from training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71L 
(Administrative Specialist) on 2 July 1981. 

	b.  She then attended training and was awarded MOS 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  
However, prior to completing training, she accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under 
Article 15 for wrongfully using a pass on 27 August 1981, knowing that it was 
unauthorized, and remaining absent until 30 August 1981; and for absenting herself 
without authority from her unit on 5 and 6 September 1981.  

	c.  On 22 January 1982, at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD the applicant accepted 
NJP under Article 15 for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of 
duty on 28 December 1981. Her punishment consisted of reduction from private/E-2 to 
private/E-1, forfeiture of $144.00, and 14 days of extra duty.  However, on 22 July 1982, 
the applicant's punishment of forfeiture of $144.00 was mitigated to forfeiture of 
$128.00. 

	d.  On 9 July 1982, the applicant's commander, initiated action under the provisions 
of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 5, paragraph 5-31 
(Expeditious Discharge Program [EDP]) to release her from active duty for transfer to 
the Individual Ready Reserve to complete her contractual service obligation, or 
discharge her from the United States Army.  The commander cited the below reasons 
and recommended an under honorable conditions discharge (general):

*	her repeated violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
*	displaying an apathetic attitude after requesting to attend Basic Skills 
Education Program classes, which resulted in NJP under Article 15 for 
dereliction of duty
*	her tendency toward insubordinate actions toward her superiors
*	her failure to alter her maladaptive behavioral trends despite numerous 
counseling statements from her superiors
*	her arrogance and insubordinate actions reflected discredit upon the United 
States Army and herself

	e.  The applicant was also advised of her right to submit a statement in her own 
behalf, but it is not known whether or not she exercised this right.  She acknowledged 
notification of her proposed discharge from the Army.  She consulted with legal counsel 
and she was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation from the Army; the 
effect on future enlistment in the Army; the possible effects of a general discharge; and 
of the procedures and rights that were available to her.

	f.  On 3 August 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation 
under the EDP, and directed that she be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve 
under the provisions of paragraph 5-31h of AR 635-200 and directed her service be 
characterized as honorable.  

	g.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 6 August 1982. Her 
DD Form 214 shows she was discharged under the provisions of chapter 5 of AR 635-
200. She completed 1 year, 4 months, and 6 days of her 3-year enlistment.  Her DD 
Form 214 further shows in:

*	Block 25 (Separation Authority), AR 635-200, paragraph 5-31h
*	Block 26, LGH
*	Block 27, RE-4
*	Block 28, Expeditious Discharge Program [EDP] Failure to maintain 
acceptable standards for retention"

	h.  On 2 June 1989, she was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) 
that corrected her RE Code from Re-4 to RE-3C.

	i.  On 19 February 1990, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed her 
narrative reason for separation but found no error or injustice.  The ADRB denied her 
petition to change the narrative reason for her separation.

4.  By regulation (AR 635-200), in effect at the time, 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 poor attitude, 
lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or 
failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the EDP.  

5.  By regulation (AR 635-5-1), Soldiers separating under chapter 5-31 (EDP) of AR 
635-200 were assigned Separation Code LGH.  The cross-reference table shows the 
Separation Code and a corresponding RE code.  At the time of her discharge, the 
Separation Code "LGH" had a corresponding RE code of "3."

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found relief was 
not warranted.  Based upon the justification outlined within the commander’s notification 
for initiation of separation and the facts and circumstances outlined within the 
applicant’s service record, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an 
error or injustice which would warrant making a change to the applicant’s military 
service records.  The Board found that the applicant’s DD Form 214 accurately reflected 
the facts and circumstances which led to the applicant’s discharge.



BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
	  
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.

REFERENCES:

1.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in 
effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  
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 poor attitude, lack of motivation, 
lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate 
promotion potential may be discharged under the EDP.  It provided for the expeditious 
elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action 
became necessary.  No member would be discharged under this program unless 
he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable 
discharge certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient 
performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for 
the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.  

2.  AR 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), covers eligibility 
criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army 
(RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Table 3-1 includes a list of the RA RE codes. 

*	An RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are 
considered qualified to reenter the Army; they are qualified for enlistment if all 
other criteria are met 
*	An RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or 
continuous service at the time of separation, but disqualification is waivable; they 
are ineligible unless a waiver is granted
*	An RE-4 applies to Soldiers separated from the last period of service with a 
nonwaivable disqualification

3.  AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that SPD codes 
are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for, and types of, 
separation from active duty.  Their primary purpose is to provide statistical accounting of 
reasons for separation.  The SPD code of "LGH" is the correct code for Soldiers 
separated under chapter 5-31 (EDP) of AR 635-200.  

4.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides instructions for determining the 
RE code for Active Army Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers.  The cross-
reference table shows the SPD code and a corresponding RE code.  At the time of his 
discharge, the SPD code of "LGH" had a corresponding RE code of "3."

NOTHING FOLLOWS

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20160013735

4

1