MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 22 October 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002075510

         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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member
Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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: That the narrative reason for his discharge be changed.

APPLICANT STATES: That he believes the narrative reason "Unsatisfactory Performance" is incorrect and should be "Trainee Discharge Program" (TDP).

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 August 1984. He attended English as a Second Language training from 21 August - 4 October 1984. He completed basic training on or about 27 November 1984. He began advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Specialist) on 29 November 1984. He was academically relieved from training on or about 17 December 1984. He began AIT in MOS 82C (Field Artillery Surveyor) on 28 January 1985. He was relieved from training in MOS 82C on or about 15 February 1985.

On 5 March 1985, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible and was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

On 5 March 1985, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He cited the applicant's second-time AIT failure as the reason for the action.

On 11 March 1985, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed separation action. He desired to consult with consulting counsel and he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. He stated that his failure was due to academic difficulties, not disciplinary problems. In his defense, he offered that he truly did his best to pass those courses. He stated he would like to stay in the Army.

On 9 April 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued an honorable discharge.

On 15 April 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with an honorable discharge. He had completed 8 months and 1 day of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Currently (and during the applicant's period of service) chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. The narrative reason for separation is Unsatisfactory Performance.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, currently (and during the applicant's period of service) sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members who were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, National Guard or Army Reserve, are in an entry level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous service, and have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention. The following conditions are illustrations of conduct that do not qualify for retention: cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet the 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 narrative reason for separation is Entry Level Performance and Conduct.

Previously, Army Regulation 635-200, the pertinent paragraph in chapter 5, provided that commanders could expeditiously discharge members under the TDP who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive soldiers when those individuals were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, Army National Guard or U.S. Army Reserve; were in basic training or in advanced individual training and had completed no more than 179 days active duty or initial active duty for training on current enlistment by the date of discharge; and had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention for reasons such as demonstrating character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.

Previously, Army Regulation 635-200, the pertinent paragraph in chapter 5, provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential could be discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.

Training and Doctrine Command message 142006 October 1983, subject: IET (Initial Entry Training) Reclassification Policy. This message established the policy that a trainee who was unable to qualify for an MOS after the first training assignment could be considered for retention and additional skill training only if his or her commander considered the trainee to be exceptional and demonstrated the motivation and potential to successfully complete the second MOS training. All second-time failures would be separated without exception.

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 understands the applicant's belief that the narrative reason for his separation should have been TDP. That separation program existed before he enlisted and was normally used for trainees who could not academically complete their initial entry training (as happened in his case). The TDP was superseded by the policies and procedures outlined in Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. However, he would not have been qualified for separation under the TDP and he was not qualified for separation under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 as he had over 180 days of continuous active service.

2. As the applicant had over 180 days of continuous active service, in an earlier time he could have separated under the EDP. However, by the time he enlisted that program was superseded by the policies and procedures outlined in Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. "Unsatisfactory Performance” is the proper narrative reason for a soldier separated under that chapter.

3. 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

_ _FNE _ __SLP__ ___EJA__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075510
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/22
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1985/04/15
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 13
DISCHARGE REASON	A04.00
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY	110.02
ISSUES 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.