I 

BOARD DATE:  2 May 2019

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180016491


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant request his under honorable conditions 
discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

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 he is and will always be proud that he volunteered at the age of 
17.  He was told he was a 2 year draft under Regular Army.  He was a newlywed and 
went AWOL which he wasn’t proud of and regrets.  He would have served his full term 
proudly but when he returned to finish his term, he was offered an early out under 
honorable conditions.  

3.  On 31 January 1973, the applicant entered the Regular Army at the age of 17.

4.  On 27 July 1973, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for being absent without 
leave (AWOL) on or about 2 July 1973 to on or about 20 July 1973.  

5.  On 29 June 1974, the applicant received NJP for being AWOL from on or about 5 
April 1974 to on or about 3 May 1974.  

6.  On 17 June 1974, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating 
action to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge 
Program) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) 
with a general discharge.  The commander stated the reasons for his proposed action 
were the applicant's bad attitude toward the US Army, appearance, job performance, 
naïve behavior, not meeting minimum standards expected of a Soldier.   
a.	The applicant was advised by legal counsel of his available rights, acknowledged 
the commanders proposed discharge action, and understood if he didn’t except the 
discharge, he would have been separated under the provisions of chapter 13.  

b.	The commander and subordinate commanders’ recommended the applicant be 
discharged and furnished a general discharge.  

7.  On 10 July 1974, the appropriate authority approved the discharge for unsuitability 
by reason of apathy, defective attitude, inability to expend effort constructively and 
directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge certificate.

8.  On 20 July 1974, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 
shows:  

*	Authority and reason: DA message DAPE MPE PS STG 062006Z JUN 74 SPD 
KMN
*	Reenlistment Code: RE-3B
*	Total Active Service: 1 year, 5 months and 2 days
*	Time Lost: 18 days

9.  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.
 
10.  The applicant states he was 17 years old when he enlisted and 18 years old when 
he was discharged.  He contends he was told he was a drafted for 2 years under the 
Regular Army.  His personnel qualification shows he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 
years; had he been inducted block 11a would indicate "US" vice "RA."

11.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his 
service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, 
or clemency.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is 
insufficient evidence to grant relief.  The board applied Office of the Secretary of 
Defense standards of liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary 
record, including the applicant’s statement and did not find any evidence of error, 
injustice, or inequity; the applicant had limited creditable service, no wartime service 
and no mitigating circumstances for the misconduct and poor attitude toward military 
service. The Board agreed that the applicant’s discharge characterization is appropriate.

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 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 635-200 (Personnel Separation – Enlisted Personnel) in effect at 
the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  
 
a.  Paragraph 5-37, discharge for failure to demonstrate promotion potential, of the 
regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel 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 because of the existence of one or more of the following 
conditions:  poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt 
socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  No individual 
would be discharged under this program unless the individual voluntarily consented to 
the proposed discharge.  Individuals discharged under this regulation were issued either 
a general or honorable discharge.
 
b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. Issuance of an honorable 
discharge will be conditioned upon proper military behavior and proficient performance 
of duty during the member's current enlistment of current period of service with due 
consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.
 
4.  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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180016491
2
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20180016491


1