ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180016207 APPLICANT REQUESTS: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states his service was interrupted due to the military's error involving the induction of his wife. They enlisted under the husband and wife plan, with a guarantee of being be separated only during their basic and advanced training periods (or in the event of a declaration of War). The Army failed to process his wife's paper work, causing her basic training dates to be delayed by over 20 weeks. After he graduated basic training, his wife moved to o live him with during his advanced training. Her entry was once again delayed and she moved with him to s. After three full months at his permanent duty station, she was arrested for desertion, even though she had never been inducted. Legal issues related to false arrest led to the Army offering both of them full discharges under honorable conditions. 3. The applicant enlisted on 15 January 1975, under the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program. His DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract) shows he enlisted for a CONUS unit of choice and an Army cash bonus. His DA Form 3286-45-R (Statements for Enlistment) does not show an option for co-location with his spouse. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 January 1975. 5. The applicant was offered participation in the Army's Voluntary Release Option Test on 7 February 1975. The reason for this offer is not stated. The applicant elected, on 24 March 1975, to not participate and indicated he desired to remain in the Army. 6. The applicant's unit commander notified the applicate on 11 August 1975 of his recommendation that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37, with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. As the basis for his recommendation, his commander cited his hostility toward the service, his perception that the service was the root of his difficulties, and his failure to possess the proper motivation and attitude required of a Soldier in the Army. 7. The applicant acknowledged the proposed separation and voluntarily consented to the separation. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights, that if his service was characterized as general under honorable conditions he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life. He elected not to provide a statement on his own behalf. 8. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 25 August 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, for failure to meet acceptable standards for continuation of military service, with a general discharge. 9. The applicant was discharged on 24 September 1975. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, with a separation program designator of "KMN." His service characterization was under honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 further shows he had 7 months and 28 days of creditable active duty with no award of any personal awards or decorations or lost time. 10. The applicant has not provided and the record does not contain any documentation that he and his wife had a co-location contract option or that one or both were arrested due to enlistment errors or reporting dates. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. The Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity. He did not provide character witness statements or post-service achievements for the Board to consider. Based upon the record, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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 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 provides that 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. 4. In 1974, the Department of the Army authorized the testing of a new discharge program, entitled the Expeditious Discharge Program (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 he 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. This program was incorporated in Army Regulation 635-200 as then in effect, at paragraph 5-37. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180016207 0 3 1