| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Member | ||
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her uncharacterized discharge be changed to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that her uncharacterized separation was accomplished in an effort to cover up the rape that was perpetuated against her by a drill sergeant. However, her recent service connected disability for a post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as a result of a sexual trauma, validates the horrible injustice that was done to her. She claims that she was also taken advantage of by being told that she should never acknowledge that she had been in the Army.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 17 September 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Specialist). She was assigned to Fort McClellan, Alabama, to attend basic training.
On 12 February 1987, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant that action to discharge her from the Army was being initiated. The unit commander indicated that the specific reasons for the proposed separation action was the applicant’s recent suicide attempt, and the events that had transpired since her arrival in the unit. On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, stated her understanding that her service would be described as Entry Level Status (uncharacterized), and that a discharge certificate would not be issued.
On 13 February 1987, the separation authority approved the Entry Level Status (ELS) performance and conduct separation action on the applicant, under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that the applicant receive an ELS uncharacterized discharge.
The applicant’s medical records was loaned to the DVA and were not available to the Board for review. In addition, no DVA records pertaining to the applicant were provided by the applicant for review.
There is no evidence of record showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to her discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an ELS. This provision applied to personnel who could not meet the standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline. An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to soldiers separating under this chapter. A general discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions, and an HD is rarely ever granted. An
HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty.
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 notes the applicant’s contention that she was separated under ELS provisions in an effort to cover up a rape that had been perpetuated against her by a drill sergeant, and that this unjust treatment has been validated by a DVA determination that she suffers from a PTSD, due to sexual trauma. However, the Board finds no evidence of record to support these claims, and the applicant has failed to provide any independent evidence supporting her contentions.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. The applicant received an uncharacterized discharge, as a result of being separated while in an ELS. At the time of her discharge, she had completed just 4 months and 27 days of active duty service. A soldier is in ELS, or probationary period, for the first 180 days of continuous active duty. An HD may be granted only in cases that are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. The Board finds no such circumstances present in the applicant’s record. Therefore, it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
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 this requirement.
5. 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
__JNS __ __INW __ __JAM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074128 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/15 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UNCHAR |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1987/02/13 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | ELS, Performance and Conduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009925
Chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an ELS. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, or release from active duty service or control of the Active Army. Although it is now alleged that the applicant was told to lie on the Standard Form 93 when answering if she ever attempted suicide,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00300
Although the mental health records are not available for review (only limited entries in the main service medical record), the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative summary dated June 28, 2002 provides the most complete psychiatric summary available in the case file while she was on active duty. Had the Physical Evaluation Board concluded that service aggravated her condition, rating deductions for existing prior to service symptoms and for non-compensable personality...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025643
The applicant states she presented evidence to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) of a diagnosis of PTSD but they refused to look at it. There is no follow-up treatment record for these conditions in the available records. Statements provided in support of the applicant's DVA application for PTSD state that the applicant's unit was on a humanitarian mission in El Salvador.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012141
Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511136C070209
APPLICANT STATES: She was discharged through administrative channels, and the Army Discharge Review Board agrees that if her condition had been properly diagnosed, she would have received a physical disability retirement or separation. That official stated that the applicant had received extensive mental health care during her active duty service, and that her difficulties were attributed to adjustment disorders and various combinations of personality features and personality disorder, that...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01726
On 7 and 23 June 1978, she failed to report for duty, for which she received two failures to repair letters. Upon the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board, on 24 June 1981, the Secretary of the Air Force approved her request to upgrade her RE code to RE-1. Although the applicant contends she should have been medically discharged, she provides no documentary evidence to support that she was unfit for continued military service at the time of her discharge from the Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00530
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00530 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The legal review for discharge action by the staff judge advocate reflects an investigation was conducted regarding two allegations by the applicant of sexual assault. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states although certain documents of record...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02845
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice to warrant changing the applicants narrative reason for separation. However, she did disclose the name of the individual in order that treatment of any medical condition could be provided to them both. However, in the absence of service clinical evidence of a diagnosable, compensable, and unfitting mental disorder during the...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2004-177
This final decision, dated May 5, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct her military record to show that she was discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of physical disability with a 100% disability rating due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rather than having been discharged by reason of unsuitability due to personality disorder. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Records On January 21, 1994, approximately...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140019958
The applicant requests correction of her military records by upgrading her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. In making this determination, the VA reviewed the applicant's military service medical treatment records dated from 23 December 1985 to 31 August 1987 and her official military personnel file dated from 27 December 1985 to 18 September 1987. The applicant contends that her military records should be corrected by upgrading her general, under honorable...