MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 10 October 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001058070

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Mr. Charles Gainor		Member
Mr. Joe R. Schroeder		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, compensation due to wrongful discharge from the U.S. Army and that her narrative reason for separation be changed to “Honorable” instead of “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) – Marginal or nonproductive”.

APPLICANT STATES: That she did finish the class and was stripped of her military benefits and rights. She contends that she was denied the right to appear before a board to stay in the Reserve, that she was forced to sign the papers without reading them and was told that she had no other recourse. She also contends that she was severely punished for writing bad checks and that she was young and ignorant. In support of her application, she submits a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 20 April 2001; a letter of explanation, dated 20 April 2001; copies of her service personnel records; Tampa College transcript for 1985/1986; a Certificate of Completion for a Nursing Assistant Program, dated 2 March 2001; a diploma for the Landscape Operation, dated December 1998; a Certificate of Excellence for the Pinellas Adult & Vocational Education Association, dated 19 May 1998; and a Certificate of Completion for Introduction to Property and Liability Insurance Course.

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

The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 17 November 1979. She was ordered to initial active duty for training on 18 June 1980 for a period of 15 weeks.

On 30 October 1980 the applicant was counseled for writing a series of bad checks totaling approximately $650. The applicant stated that she was unaware that she had insufficient funds because her father was to have deposited $1000 to her account, that she would have called her father for verification but he was a self-employed carpenter and was out of town. She stated that she spent the money on uniforms, personal items and gifts for her boyfriend.

On 31 October 1980 the applicant was counseled after her command spoke with her father and boyfriend referencing the bad checks which now totaled over $1000. The applicant’s boyfriend indicated that he did not know she had written that many checks, but was aware she had spent a lot of money on both himself and her. The applicant’s father indicated that he was unaware of any of the events that had or were supposed to occur, i.e. the bad checks, depositing money in her account, being a self employed carpenter, out of town, etc. Her father explained that the applicant had entered the service without his knowledge, that he had had problems with his daughter writing bad checks prior to her leaving home and which he had to repay. The applicant admitted that she had lied about her father and that she had written the checks because she was tired of being broke. She was advised that she would repay the money for the checks and would be punished for her actions as well as considered for discharge.

On 3 November 1980 the applicant was notified of her pending relief from the “71G10 Course” due to her pending administrative discharge. She acknowledged notification of the recommendation for relief for other than academic reasons on 3 November 1980. The applicant waived her right to counsel and elected not to request that a Faculty Board be convened to investigate the matter and hear arguments in her behalf.

The applicant was dropped from the course effective 5 November 1980.

On 19 November 1980 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for writing 16 bad checks in excess of $1000. Her punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $200 pay per month for 2 months.

On 28 November 1980 the applicant was notified of her pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33, under the Trainee Discharge Program. The unit commander recommended that the applicant be released from active duty and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. The unit commander cited that the applicant had displayed a lack of maturity and responsibility as evidenced by having received a Field Grade Article 15 for writing 16 bad checks amounting over $1000 and that such action was prejudicial to the United States Army and would not be tolerated by the command.

On 1 December 1980 the applicant acknowledged notification of her proposed separation under the Trainee Discharge Program. She indicated that she understood that if she did not have sufficient prior service, that due to non-completion of requisite Active Duty time, VA and other benefits normally associated with completion of Honorable active service would be affected. Also, she elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf and declined a separation medical examination.

On 1 December 1980 the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of the Trainee Discharge Program.

The intermediate commanders recommended that that applicant be separated under the Trainee Discharge Program and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.

On 9 December 1980 the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant’s character of service be honorable.


Accordingly, the applicant was honorably released from active duty on
12 December 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33f(1), under the Trainee Discharge Program, and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. On 16 November 1985 the applicant was honorably discharged from the Individual Ready Reserve.

Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the entry “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) – Marginal or nonproductive”.

Item 26 (Separation Code) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry “LET”. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code “LET” is “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP). Marginal or nonproductive.” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33f(1).

There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army. Paragraph 5-33 of this regulation, in effect at the time, governed the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP). This program provided for the separation of service members who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive soldiers or have failed to respond to formal counseling. The regulation essentially requires that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual training, on the job, or service school training prior to award of a military occupational specialty and must not have completed more than 179 days of active duty on their current enlistment by the date of separation. The regulation provided that soldiers may be separated when they have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention due to failure to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of regulation will be honorable.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that she did finish the class. However, evidence of record shows that the applicant was dropped from the “71G10 Course” on 5 November 1980.
2. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that she was stripped of her benefits and rights. However, evidence of record shows that on 1 December 1980 the applicant indicated that she understood that if she did not have sufficient prior service, that due to non-completion of requisite Active Duty time, VA and other benefits normally associated with completion of Honorable active service would be affected.

3. The applicant’s contention that she was denied the right to appear before a board to stay in the USAR is not supported by the evidence of record. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was transferred from active duty to the Individual Ready Reserve, a component of the USAR, on 12 December 1980 and was honorably discharged on 16 December 1985.

4. The Board also considered the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation. However, the governing regulation in effect at the time states that the reason for discharge based on separation code “LET” is “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP). Marginal or nonproductive.” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33f(1). Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

5. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

6. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

7. 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 this requirement.

8. 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

LLS_____ CG_____ JRS_____ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058070
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20011010
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.0200 (Narrative Reason Change)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.