ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 July 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180016309 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests, in effect, her records be corrected to change her reason for discharge and applicable entries shown on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for period ending 28 June 1982. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Letter from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), dated 6 November 2018 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 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: a. Her DD Form 214 reflects Relief from Active Duty (REFRAD), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 5-31h(1), EDP (Expeditious Discharge Program), separation code LGH, and RE code 3. She was given her discharge papers from the military while in the hospital after having an emergency delivery. When she became aware that she was being recommended for discharge she began to fight the discharge. She was not afforded an opportunity to state her case. Her signature is not on any of the papers as it relates to her discharge since she was in the hospital for over a week and discharged from the military while in that state. b. She has been challenging the recommendation for discharge and its reasons since earlier than January 1982. She has not received a formal opportunity to state her case or the issues surrounding her discharge. After the discharge in June 1982, she immediately sent her case to the hearing board (Army Discharge Review Board) to have this matter reviewed and her discharge upgraded and all negative entries removed and reflect honorable service or reinstate her back into the military. 3. On 9 January 1980, at the age of 18 years old, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a term of 4 years. 4. Her record contains ten counseling statements and/or statements from October 1981 to 20 May 1982, regarding her inefficiencies as a Soldier and a dental assistant, which included but not limited to her unsatisfactory job performance, miserable attitude towards her job, lack of respect for the dental officers, carelessness in handling hazardous materials, decreased morale, reporting late for work, not properly following sick call procedures, and not being in the proper uniform. 5. Her record also contains four letters of appreciation and one memorandum, from 14 January 1982 and 7 June 1982 for being selected as the MEDDAC (U.S. Army Medical Department Activity) Soldier of the Month, participating in the MEDDAC Soldier of Quarter competition, and for performing in an outstanding manner while assisting another dental clinic. 6. On 21 May 1982, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was initiating separation actions against her under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program). The reasons provided were her duty performance within the Post Dental Clinic had been steadily deteriorating, having been counseled on numerous occasions in regards to reporting late, improper sterilization technique, and general non- caring attitude while assigned to a treatment area involving direct patient contact. 7. The applicant acknowledged she had been notified of the pending separation action against her and she had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, understood her rights, and elected to submit statements in her own behalf. She stated: a. She had been treated unfairly by her supervisor and had not been given the opportunity to prove that she could be a good Soldier and an asset to the U.S. Army. She was abused verbally and treated with disrespect. She had not been given the opportunity to advance. She did not agree with the separation, a separation that had not been thoroughly investigated. Why was she allowed to continue in the service without corrective measures being taken? b. She deserved to remain in the military and wished to continue to serve her country. She took the initiative to compete for the Soldier of the Month and Soldier of the Quarter boards. She would like to work under a different supervisor to prove she could do a good job. The problems that had been cited were exaggerated and were the result of personality/leadership difficulties. If any discharge was approved she would prefer to be discharged because of her pregnancy. 8. Her medical records show that on 14 June 1982, she was six and half months pregnant with twins and in good condition upon release from the emergency room. 9. The appropriate commander approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be issued an honorable discharge. On 22 June 1982, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training (AT)), Saint Louis, MO. Her service was characterized as honorable. She completed 2 years, 5 months, and 20 days of net active service this period. Her DD Form 214, shows she was awarded or authorized: * Army Service Ribbon * Hand Grenade Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge * M-16 Rifle Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge 10. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for review of her case. The record shows, after multiple letters between ADRB and the applicant, on 18 March 1992, the applicant withdrew her petition and on 2 April 1992, the case was closed. 11. The applicant provided a letter from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), dated 6 November 2018, which shows that the applicant requested her medical health OB/GYN (obstetrician/gynecology) records. 12. The applicant states she was given her discharge papers from the military while in the hospital after having an emergency delivery. When she became aware that she was being recommended for discharge she began to fight the discharge. She was not afforded an opportunity to state her case. Her signature is not on any of the papers as it relates to this discharge since she was in the hospital for over a week and discharged from the military while in that state. 13. Her record shows she enlisted at the age of 18 years old and she was counseled on ten occasions regarding her inefficiencies in her job performance. Additionally, her record shows she competed for the Soldier of the Month and Soldier of the Quarter boards and she did not voluntarily accept the separation under the EDP but was released from active duty despite her request for retention. She served 29 months and 20 days of her 48 months contractual obligation and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (AT), Saint Louis, MO, to complete her remaining service obligation. 14. In 1973, U.S. Army initiated the Expeditious Discharge Program as a test; it gave commanders the opportunity to separate unproductive Soldiers who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of active duty and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army. The program required Soldiers to voluntarily accept discharge and they could receive either an honorable or general discharge. 15. AR 635-200, paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program). Commanders could separate Soldiers under this program when they demonstrated they could/would not meet the Army's accepted standards for enlisted personnel, based on one or more of the following: having a poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. They had to have served at least 6, but not more than 36 months. Soldiers were not separated unless they voluntarily accepted discharge, and they could receive either an honorable or an under honorable conditions (general) character of service. Interim Change 4 to AR 635-200, dated 1 April 1982, eliminated the requirement to obtain the Soldier's consent for separation under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program. 16. AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 (Secretarial Authority) states, in pertinent part, that the separation of enlisted personnel is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and will be effected only by his authority. Except as delegated by these regulations or by special Department of the Army directives, the discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the Government will be at the Secretary’s discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him. Such authority may be given either in an individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified in such orders. 17. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, her service record, and her statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, her record of service, the counseling statements and laudatory documents in her records, the contents of the separation packet to include her acknowledgement, her pregnancy and the reason for her separation. The Board found insufficient evidence to find an error or injustice in her separation processing. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant’s separation was not in error or unjust. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX :XXX :XXX 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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. The Department of the Army began testing the Expeditious Discharge Program (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 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. An honorable or general discharge was required and there has never been any provision for an automatic upgrade of a discharge less than fully honorable. 3. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separation – Enlisted Personnel) in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program). Commanders could separate Soldiers under this program when they demonstrated they could/would not meet the Army's accepted standards for enlisted personnel, based on one or more of the following: having a poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. They had to have served at least 6, but not more than 36 months. Soldiers were not separated unless they voluntarily accepted discharge, and they could receive either an honorable or an under honorable conditions (general) character of service. Interim Change 4 to Army Regulation 635-200, dated 1 April 1982, eliminated the requirement to obtain the Soldier's consent for separation under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program. 4. AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 (Secretarial Authority) states, in pertinent part, that the separation of enlisted personnel is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and will be effected only by his authority. Except as delegated by these regulations or by special Department of the Army directives, the discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the Government will be at the Secretary’s discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him. Such authority may be given either in an individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified in such orders. 5. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and BCMRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. a. The guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. b. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to the applicant. I separated the paragraphs because I thought that the 5-31 para should come first. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180016309 7 1