BOARD DATE: 2 March 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190012819 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to an 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 was guaranteed to serve as an electrician in MOS (military occupational specialty) 5120 (51R (Electrician)), but that was not the case. He was in the motor pool watching mechanics work on trucks. He worked as an assistant truck driver, carpenter helper, auger operator, and then a truck driver. Only a couple of times he worked with some generators the whole time he was there. After going through his chain of command to the general officer of the post, he was told ?We can’t please everyone.? The applicant believes that he was given false information before he joined because he thought he would work as an electrician in the Army, pulling wires or anything in his MOS. He feels he was lied to. 3. On 8 April 1974, the applicant enlisted the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program. In connection with his enlistment, he signed a DA Form 3286-32R. In pertinent part, the document guaranteed the applicant he would receive his station of choice of Fort Hood, TX, and he was assured to attend the school course ATC 721- 51R20, Electrician. He stated the he read and understood each of the statements in the document and the statements in DA Form 3286, signed by him, and understood that they were intended to constitute all promises whatsoever concerning his enlistment in the U.S. Army Reserve. Any other promise, representation, or commitment made to him in connection with his enlistment was written below in his own handwriting or was hereby waived. In pen in ink, the applicant wrote ?none except as indicated above – end.? 4. On 19 August 1974, at the age of 17 years old, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a term of 3 years. In connection with his enlistment, he signed a DA Form 3286-52-R (Statements for Enlistment Part VI – Conus Station of Choice Enlistment Option). In pertinent part, he was guaranteed his station of choice of Fort Hood, TX, and upon completion of BCT (basic combat training) he would attend AIT (advanced individual training) in MOS 51R20, Electrician. Again he signed a statement of understanding and made the pen and ink entry, ?none except as indicated above – end.? 5. After completing initial entry training, the applicant was assigned to Fort Hood, TX. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II), shows while assigned to Fort Hood, TX, his principle duty MOS was 51R20 and his principal duty was Electrician. His conduct and efficiency ratings are blank. 6. On 2 October 1975, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program). The commander stated the reasons for the proposed action were the applicant displayed an extremely poor attitude, lack of motivation, and lack of self- discipline. These shortcomings have resulted in substandard performances in all Soldierly areas. He maintained the grossest area in the barracks. He was constantly directed to get a haircut to military standards and his uniform and appearance had never met military standards. His poor attitude was characterized by his general hostility towards the Army. The commander also indicated that he had numerous counseling sessions, the dates of the counseling sessions, and who counseled him. 7. The applicant acknowledged his commander's notification, affirmed he was given the opportunity to consult with counsel, and voluntarily accepted the discharge, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 8. On 7 October 1975, the appropriate commander approved the commander's recommendation and directed a general discharge under honorable conditions discharge. 9. In connection with his administrative separation proceedings, the applicant underwent a medical examination, which cleared him for separation. The record is void of a mental status evaluation. 10. On 23 October 1975, he was discharged accordingly. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions. He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 5 days of net active service this period. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows: * Separation Authority: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-37 * Primary Specialty Number and Title: 51R20 Electrician, 741206 (None) * Secondary Specialty Number and Title: 51B20 Carpenter, 750916 * He was awarded or authorized: * National Defense Service Medal * Rifle Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge 11. The applicant states he was guaranteed to serve as an electrician in MOS (military occupational specialty) 5120 (51R (Electrician)), but that was not the case. He was in the motor pool watching mechanics work on trucks. He worked as an assistant truck driver, carpenter helper, auger operator, and then a truck driver. Only a couple of times he worked with some generators the whole time he was there. 12. His record shows he was separated under the expeditious discharge program for his extremely poor attitude, lack of motivation, and lack of self-discipline. a. A review of his record is absent some records required to be maintained in his military personnel records. His separation shows a multitude of reasons the commanders separated him, however, his record is void of any counseling's that support the reasons and/or shows indiscipline. b. It also shows on 16 September 1975, the applicant was awarded a secondary MOS, 51B20 (Carpenter). He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 5 days of his 3-year contractual obligation. c. In 1973 the U.S. Army initiated the Expeditious Discharge Program as a test under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200. Commanders had the opportunity to separate unproductive Soldiers who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of active duty and had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards. The commander could not separate a soldier under this program unless the soldier voluntarily accepted it. Characterization of service could be honorable or under honorable conditions (general). d. AR 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents) states for item 16a (Primary Specialty Number and Title) enter MOS code, title, and date of award. Also, for enlisted personnel enter PMOS evaluation score and date of score. If the enlisted person has not received an evaluation score, enter ?None.? For item 17a (Secondary Specialty Number and Title), enter the MOS code, title, and date of award. Evaluation score for the SMOS is not required. 13. 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: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record and length of service, counselling records, the frequency and nature of his conduct and performance deficiencies, the reason for his separation, his acknowledgement of the separation and the entries recorded on his discharge documents. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct or performance issues and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon 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 :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. 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, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. a. 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. b. 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. 4. AR 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribes separation documents that are furnished individuals who are retired, discharged, or released from active military service, including members of Reserve components on active duty for training or full time training and U.S Military Academy cadets. It states for item 16a (Primary Specialty Number and Title) enter MOS code, title, and date of award. Also, for enlisted personnel enter PMOS evaluation score and date of score. If the enlisted person has not received an evaluation score, enter ?None.? For item 17a (Secondary Specialty Number and Title), enter the MOS code, title, and date of award. Evaluation score for the SMOS is not required. 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 (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190012819 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190012819 6 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190012819 5