| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was treated unfairly while in the Army because she was unaware that she had asthma and was given nonjudicial punishment because she kept falling out of the runs and complaining that her chest hurt. When she was finally diagnosed with active asthma, she was told that she was going to be discharged with an uncharacterized discharge. She goes on to state that this has caused her depression to the point that she is emotionally upset and can’t sleep at night. She also states that she has always dreamed of being in the military and that she comes from a military family.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in San Antonio, Texas, on 23 January 2002, for a period of 5 years, training as a military policeman and assignment to Europe. She was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to undergo her training.
The facts and circumstances surrounding her administrative separation are not present in the available records. However, her records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant, which shows that she was discharged on 16 April 2002, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, for failure to meet medical/physical procurement standards. She had served 2 months and 24 days of total active service and her service was uncharacterized.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 18 April 2002, for an upgrade of her discharge to honorable. She cited the same reasons to that board that she has cited to this Board. The ADRB determined that she had been properly discharged with her service uncharacterized and voted unanimously to deny her request on 28 August 2002.
Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-11 provides, in pertinent part, that soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty will be separated. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within 6 months of the soldier’s initial entrance on active duty and the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at the time. The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the soldier is in an entry level status. Entry level status is defined as less than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.
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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
2. Accordingly, her service was properly uncharacterized because she was in an entry-level status.
3. While the Board can understand the applicant’s concerns, an uncharacterized separation was designed to not attach any stigma to a person’s service because they failed to complete the initial training required. Unfortunately, the Board has no jurisdiction or control over how individual States administer their social service programs or employers interpret uncharacterized service.
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
___mm__ ___ja____ __jlp____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076835 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/08 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UNCHAR |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2002/04/16 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH5 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | ELS |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 516 | 144.2900/A29.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130006600
The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 25 March 2013. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. However, Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081935C070215
On 30 October 2002, in an unanimous opinion, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to change her character of service on her DD Form 214, stating that such a discharge would have been recommended by an Enlistment Physical Standards Board (EPSB), which would have revealed that she had a medical discharge disqualifying her for enlistment, that competent medical authority would have approved the findings of that board, and that the applicant would have agreed to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007298C070206
His wife stated her husband was discharged from the Army for asthma on the assumption that he had asthma. 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 contends the RE code and the separation code on his separation document should be changed because he does not have asthma.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000902C070205
The applicant requests that her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show she was separated by reason of medical retirement (asthma with a 60 percent disability rating); to change her uncharacterized description of service to honorable; and to add her awards for marksmanship badges for the M16 rifle, the hand grenade, and the bayonet. On 7 July 2005, the VA awarded the applicant a 30 percent disability rating for her asthma. Medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063983C070421
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. It was recommended that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017465
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. a. Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000544
Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she was discharged on 25 October 1996, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11 (Separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards), after completing 1 month and 2 days of active duty service, with an "uncharacterized" characterization of service. Paragraph 3-9, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060016029 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty, that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016485
The applicant's record shows she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve and entered active duty on 21 May 2002. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows she was discharged on 13 June 2002 under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administration Separations), for a disability that existed prior to service with uncharacterized service. Although the applicant states that she no longer has asthma, she has provided no evidence to show that an RE code 3, which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054158C070420
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...