Title: 1
Author: +

ABCMR Proceedings (cont)                                                           AC97-10996

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the narrative reason for her separation be changed.  She states she was a good soldier.  She had been promoted only two months prior to her discharge.

2.  The applicant’s military records show she was born on 7 January 1963.  She completed 12 years of formal education.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on  23 September 1980 for 3 years.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76V (Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist).

3.  On 23 June 1981, the applicant was promoted to private first class, E-3, with a time in service and time in grade waiver.

4.  On 13 July 1981, the company commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, Expeditious Discharge Program.  He cited the applicant’s lack of motivation and lack of    self-discipline.

5.  On 17 July 1981, the applicant acknowledged notification of the separation action, stated she voluntarily consented to the discharge and elected to submit statements in her own behalf.  No statement is attached to the packet.

6.  Three counseling statements are in the packet:  one dated 3 August 1981 from the acting first sergeant citing the applicant’s lack of interest in the military; one undated from her non-commissioned officer in charge citing her bad attitude and outlook; and one dated 6 August 1981 from her commander citing her poor attitude.

7.  On an unknown date, the applicant received a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in any board proceedings.

8.  The applicant did not complete a separation physical.

9.  On an unknown date, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed she be given a general discharge.

10.  On 28 August 1981, she was discharged with a characterization of service of “under honorable conditions,” (a general discharge) in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5.  The narrative reason for separation is “Failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.”  She received a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3.  She had completed 11 months and 6 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent paragraph in Chapter 5 provides that members who have completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged.  It provides for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before board or punitive action becomes necessary.  No member will be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consents to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade and general aptitude.   A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:  

1.  There is no evidence of any disciplinary actions taken against the soldier nor any counseling statements dated prior to the initiation of the separation action.

2. .  Despite the applicant’s voluntary consent to the separation, there does not appear to be any evidence in the record to support the command’s contention that she failed to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  She was promoted to pay grade E-3 on 23 June 1991, just 3 weeks prior to the initiation of the separation action that cited her lack of motivation and lack of self-discipline.  The promotion was given with a waiver for time in service and time in grade, usually indicating the soldier is a better-than-average performer/soldier.

3.  The type of discharge given does not appear to be appropriate considering the evidence in the applicant’s military record.  

4.  The RE code given does not appear to be appropriate considering the above conclusions.

5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be just and proper to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:  

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was given an honorable discharge from the Army on 28 August 1981, under the provisions of Chapter    5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, Secretarial Authority, for the convenience of the government; that her separation code is JFF and her reentry code is RE-1.

2.  That the individual concerned be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 28 August 1981, denoting an honorable discharge in lieu of the general discharge now held by her.

3.  That the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                                             
					 	CHAIRPERSON