| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his uncharacterized discharge be changed to general.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was informed that he was being discharged for failure to qualify at the rifle range by one shot. He contends that he was also told the Army was over strength and he could enlist again in two years. However, he was never given a chance for recycle. He goes on to state that he was not informed of his legal rights or provided any legal counsel.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 23 August 1982 for a period of 3 years. While in basic training, the applicant was counseled on four occasions for his inability to qualify for basic rifle marksmanship, on occasion he was also counseled for aptitude and self discipline.
On 25 October 1982 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry level status performance and conduct (Trainee Discharge Program) due to aptitude and self-discipline.
The applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed separation on
25 October 1982, declined the opportunity to consult with counsel and elected not to make a statement on his own behalf.
On 25 October 1982 the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. He based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s aptitude and self discipline.
On 26 October 1982 the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant’s character of service be uncharacterized.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 1 November 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, paragraph 11-3a, for entry level status performance and conduct (Trainee Discharge Program). His character of service was characterized as entry level status - uncharacterized.
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. Chapter 11, of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status. This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. 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 the initiation of separation action. The soldier’s service is uncharacterized when separated 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, it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s contention that he was informed he was being discharged for failure to qualify at the rifle range is not supported by the evidence of record. Evidence of record does show that the applicant was counseled on four occasions for his inability to qualify for basic rifle marksmanship. However, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry level status performance and conduct (Trainee Discharge Program) due to aptitude and self discipline on 25 October 1982.
2. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he was not informed of his legal rights or provided any legal counsel. However, evidence of record shows the applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel on
25 October 1982.
3. 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.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
5. 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.
6. 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
RVO____ ENA____ TEO_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058402 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010927 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19821101 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For entry level status performance and conduct (Trainee Discharge Program) |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020995
On 31 January 1983, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 [Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel], chapter 11 [Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct - TDP], and that his service would be uncharacterized. Chapter 11 provides in: a. paragraph 11-3 (Separation policy) that this policy applies to members who voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005243
The applicant requests, in effect, that her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a medical discharge. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Service medical records * Service personnel records * DVA medical records CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 11 December 1982, the applicants unit commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001460
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was medically discharged. Personnel who enlisted in the RA are considered to be in an entry level status if, before the date of the initiation of separation action, they have completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty. The regulatory guidance shows that personnel who enlist in the RA are considered to be in an entry level status if, before the date of the initiation of separation action, they have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013528
On 9 March 1983, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was recommending that he be separated from the service under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, Trainee Discharge Program (TDP), due to a lack of physical aptitude. This regulation was revised effective 1 October 1982 to delete the expeditious discharge program and provide for an uncharacterized separation for Soldiers separated with 180 days or less of continuous service. The applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010017
A DA Form 4856-R, dated 30 June 1983, states the applicant was again counseled by SSG M____ about being recycled or being discharged. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct (Trainee Discharge Program) with uncharacterized service. Army Regulation 635-200 also provides in pertinent part, that a separation will be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011342C070208
On 6 December 1982, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry-level status performance and conduct. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant has submitted insufficient evidence with her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021781
His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) states he had a bad attitude and recommends that he not be allowed to reenlist. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Separation was warranted by the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010361
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010361 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The original Record of Proceedings considered the applicant's service record from his date of enlistment on 3 August 1982 to his discharge on 29 November 1982, a total period of 3 months and 27 days (approximately 117 days). The applicant received general counseling on 10, 16, and 17 November 1982, wherein he was informed he was being totally unresponsive to all efforts...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025501
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 April 1983, the applicants unit commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, for entry level status performance and conduct. The commander cited: * her inability to meet the standards of military training * poor duty performance and attitude toward military service 5.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018798
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.