APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, the applicant requests that his uncharacterized discharge for entry level status performance and conduct be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That the records were unjust.  His training while in the Army made him crazy - something that he had never before experienced.  He is now having a difficult time in his home town.  He joined the Army to make his family proud of him and to be somebody in life.  He wanted to join the Central Intelligence Agency because he wanted to make the country stronger.  At one time he was lost because he had mental problems.  He has memories of fighting and going to another country and destroying the enemy. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Army on 28 February 1984 and was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for training.

On 2 May 1984 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order.  On 29 May 1984 he received nonjudicial punishment for theft. 

On 23 May 1984 the applicant was counseled by two NCOs who informed the applicant that they were recommending that he  be discharged because of two serious acts of misconduct.  He was counseled by his commanding officer for that same reason.  That official stated that he was initiating action to discharge the applicant from the Army.

A mental status evaluation of 31 May 1984 indicates that the applicant was at risk because of symptoms of anxiety, restlessness and confused thinking.  He had antisocial features which might be of long standing.  The applicant expressed his desire to stay in the service and rationalized that what had happened was due to depression; however, it appeared that his situation was chronic.  The evaluating official recommended that the applicant be discharged.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.

On 1 June 1984 the applicant’s commanding officer initiated action to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 (trainee discharge program).  That official cited the applicant’s two incidents of misconduct which indicated that the applicant had low moral standards and serious character flaws.

The applicant consulted with counsel, and stated that he understood that if the discharge was approved he would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service.  He made a statement to the effect that he admitted to having done wrong since coming into the Army, but he believed that he had the moral character and ability to be a good soldier.  He stated that he wanted to stay in the Amy and requested the discharge action be suspended so that he could prove himself.
 
The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged.  
 
A 5 June 1984 counseling statement from the applicant’s command sergeant major indicates that that official stated that the applicant would not become a quality soldier because of his immaturity, social maladjustment, lack of self discipline, and emotional instability.  That official stated that rehabilitation was not recommended because it would not produce positive results.  He stated that in view of the seriousness of the offenses against the applicant, he recommended that he be discharged.

On 8 June 1984 the separation authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged.  He was discharged on 15 June 1984.  The applicant had 3 months and 18 days of service.

On 24 January 1992 the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

On 5 May 1997 in a formal hearing, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous opinion, again denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority
for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of
that regulation provides for the separation of personnel
in an entry level status for unsatisfactory performance
or conduct as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable
effort or a failure to adapt to the military
environment.  These provisions apply only to individuals
whose separation processing is started within 180 days
of entry into active duty.  An uncharacterized
separation is mandatory under this chapter.
  
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which wound tend to jeopardize his rights.  The applicant’s conduct was clearly unsatisfactory.  His discharge in an entry level status was appropriate.

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. 

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director