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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged.
A 5 June 1984 counseling statement from the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which wound tend to jeopardize his rights. The applicants 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 applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708424
APPLICANT REQUESTS : In effect, the applicant requests that his uncharacterized discharge for entry level status performance and conduct be upgraded to honorable. That official stated that he was initiating action to discharge the applicant from the Army. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002208C070205
They unanimously recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, with an uncharacterized entry-level status discharge. The applicant was discharged on 21 August 2003, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, with an uncharacterized entry- level status discharge. The regulation states that a Soldier is in an entry level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063743C070421
On 14 January 1994 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for being AWOL for 28 days. On 19 January 1994 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged. However, that board again, in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant’s request to change his discharge (Tab D), stating that the...
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00204
Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Notification Letter to Applicant dtd Oct 6, 1999 Recruit Mental Health Substance Use Evaluation dtd Sep 23, 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 990824 Date of Discharge: 991013 Length of Service (years, months,...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00840
And when I have requested that I would be terminated from the reserves it was not because I did not want to be a part of the navy I just didn’t see the point of me sitting around in the reserves. 860615: Acknowledged the policy change for excused drills.880907: Letter of intent to administratively separate under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve training was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested. ]890425: Letter of intent to...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100016298
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 5 February 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200, by reason of entry level performance and conduct for failure to adapt socially or emotionally to military life, with an uncharacterized discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014352
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence in the available record showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01474
ND03-01474 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030909. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. There was no erroneous entry or anything else, just a boy receiving bad advice from upper ranking counselor.
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00167
ND01-00167 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001127, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable...
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00367
Recruit is subject to new DOR Program at recruit training.920404: Recruit dropped to MRP due to chest pain. By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as “uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct which would merit an “honorable” characterization. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the...