IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 December 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080015447 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he sustained a head/ear injury while on active duty resulting in his inability to maintain/retain a sense of balance. 3. The applicant provides copies of 10 pages of medical documentation from the Jones Otolaryngology Group dated during 2006 and 2007. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 28 September 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky, for basic combat training. 2. On 18 November 1999, the applicant was counseled for fighting and for disobeying a noncommissioned officer. He was informed of the consequences of such actions. He indicated on the counseling sheet that he disagreed with the counselor’s remarks but offered no rebuttal. 3. On 14 December 1999, the applicant was counseled for receiving a fourth "no-go" for failing to meet the standards for determining the grid coordinates of a location on a military map. He indicated that he agreed with the counselor’s remarks and understood that separation action may be initiated if his performance did not improve. 4. On 7 January 2000, the applicant was counseled regarding his failure to be prepared to take an Army training test. He was reminded of his previous four "no-gos" and his fighting and failure to obey the orders of his noncommissioned officer. The counselor informed him that he was being recommended for separation. He indicated that he agreed with the counselor’s remarks. 5. On 10 January 2000, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry-level status performance and conduct. The reason given was the applicant’s four test failures and his being unprepared to take a subsequent test. The commander stated that the applicant had been able to pass the practice events but failed at each test indicating a serious lack of motivation. Aside from his poor performance on these tests, he was also mediocre, at best, in his performance at weapons qualification, as well as in other tests. Since being assigned to the training company, he had been a discipline problem and was counseled for fighting in the billets, disobeying a noncommissioned officer, disrespecting a noncommissioned officer, and for failure to follow instructions. 6. On 12 January 2000, the applicant consulted with counsel and elected to make a statement in his own behalf. He also declined a separation medical examination. Any statement that he may have made is not in the available records for review. 7. On 21 January 2000, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged in an entry-level status with an uncharacterized character of service. He was accordingly discharged on 26 January 2000. He had completed 3 months and 29 days of creditable active service. 8. On 13 June 2007, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 11, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry-level status. It states, in pertinent part, that separation under this chapter applies to Soldiers who are in an entry-level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty and have demonstrated that they cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life. Entry-level status is defined as the first 180 days of continuous active duty. It further states that the character of service for members separated under the provisions of this chapter will be uncharacterized. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. Since he was separated before he completed 180 days of continuous active duty, his service was properly uncharacterized. 3. There is no available evidence of record showing that the applicant was injured while on active duty or that any such injury was the proximate cause of his inability to pass the required training tests. 4. 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. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________X____________ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20070016793 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080015447 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1