| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member | |
| Ms. Linda M. Barker | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) be corrected to show that he served 90 days of active duty service.
APPLICANT STATES: By way of a telephone conversation on 27 June 2003, that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) denied him medical treatment because he did not serve 90 days; therefore, he is not a veteran.
In his application, the applicant states that he enlisted for military occupational specialty (MOS) 98G (Electronic Warfare/Signal Intelligence Voice Interceptor (German)); however, the Army took away his "guaranteed" MOS and discharged him three days before he became entitled to his benefits. He contends that he fulfilled his obligation and has been cheated out of his benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) under the delayed entry program on 11 July 1977. His DA Form 3286-3 (Statements for Enlistment) shows that he needed to qualify for a Top Secret clearance. His DD Form 1966/4 (Application for Enlistment) shows that he denied any pre-service drug use. On 30 August 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty for a period of 4 years.
While in basic training, on 26 September 1977, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39, the Trainee Discharge Program. The unit commander cited that the applicant lacked motivation, constructive attitude and requisite self-discipline to become an effective soldier. He stated that due to a necessary change in MOS (not granted the requisite security clearance for MOS 98G due to drug incidents while a minor), the applicant lost all desire to be a soldier and that his attitude was a threat to unit morale.
On 26 September 1977, the applicant acknowledged notification of his pending separation and proposed Honorable Discharge. He indicated that if he did not have sufficient prior service, he understood that due to non-completion of requisite active duty time, DVA and other benefits normally associated with completion of honorable active duty service would be affected. He elected not to make a statement on his behalf, he declined a separation medical examination and he declined the opportunity to consult with counsel.
On 30 September 1977, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.
Accordingly, on 3 October 1977, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39, the Trainee Discharge Program, after completing 34 days of active duty.
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he served 1 month and 4 days of total active duty service.
There is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records which shows that he served 90 days of active duty service.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5 provides for separation for the convenience of the Government. This chapter, in pertinent part, states that the Trainee Discharge Program provides that commanders may expeditiously discharge members who lack the necessary motivation, discipline, ability, or aptitude to become a productive soldier when they were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, Army National Guard, or USAR; or are in basic combat training or basic training or in MOS training in advanced individual training, a service school or on job training prior to the award of the MOS for which being trained and will have completed no more than 179 days active duty, or initial active duty for training, on current enlistment by the date of discharge.
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 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.
2. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that the Army took away his "guaranteed" MOS. Evidence of record shows that following a necessary change in MOS, through no fault of the Army, the applicant lost all desire to be a soldier and that his attitude was a threat to unit morale. The Board also notes he was aware he needed a Top Secret security clearance and that he failed to inform the Army of his pre-service drug use.
3. The Board considered the applicant's contention that he was illegally discharged three days before he was entitled to benefits. However, the applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. Evidence of record also shows that on 26 September 1977
the applicant indicated that he understood that due to non-completion of requisite active duty time, DVA and other benefits normally associated with completion of honorable active duty service would be affected.
4. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that he fulfilled his obligation. Evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted for a period of 3 years; however, he only served 34 days.
5. The Board noted the applicant's request to correct his DD Form 214 to show that he served 90 days of active duty service. However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he completed 90 days of active duty service. Evidence of record shows that the applicant completed 34 days of total active duty service which is properly reflected on his DD Form 214. Therefore, 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____ JEA_____ LMB_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087247 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030814 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 129.0100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007079C080410
Gerard W. Schwartz | |Acting Director | | | | |Analyst | The following members, a quorum, were present: | | | |Chairperson | | | | |Member | | | | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant was not considered MOS qualified and eligible for promotion until completion of the required security clearance. Not withstanding the advisory opinion, the applicant was not MOS qualified, nor is there evidence that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013824
A DA Form 4856, dated 27 November 2006, stated the applicant completed his obligations to be promoted to E-5 under the ACASP and completed his 8-week evaluation period as of 27 November 2006. The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 12 October 2007, from the Commander, 314th Military Intelligence Battalion. The battalion commander stated that this new policy equated to a target promotion date within 10-14 weeks after an ACASP enlistee arrived in the unit (based on 2 weeks of unit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012184
The program qualified non-prior service members with critical skills needed by the Army, to be granted an accelerated promotion when they enlisted for certain military MOSs, met all the requirements for that MOS, and demonstrated proficiency to their training command. In an advisory opinion, dated 14 August 2008, the Chief, Recruiting Policy Branch, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, stated that if the applicant enlisted under the ACASP for MOS 98G, with entry grade of E-3 and later...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010545
The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted under the provisions of the ACASP and that upon completion of all required 98G MOS training, she was reassigned to her first duty station, where she arrived for duty on 17 July 2004. Given the recommendation of the applicant's chain of command and the revised unit policy, it would be appropriate to grant partial relief in this case by adjusting the applicant's SGT promotion effective date and date of rank to 30 September 2004, which was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010544
In his unsigned self-authored statement, dated 5 June 2008, the applicant states that: a. he enlisted under the ACASP program, formerly known as the stripes for skills program, which qualifies non-prior service-members with critical Army needed skills to be granted an accelerated promotion, when they enlist for a certain MOS, meet all the requirements for that MOS, and can demonstrate proficiency to their training command. He was finally recommended for promotion to SGT/E-5 on 27 November...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605081C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That she be given the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) kicker. APPLICANT STATES: That she had enlisted for the VEAP kicker, and understood that receiving the kicker was contingent upon her being awarded, and working in, a certain military occupational specialty (MOS). On 1 November 1985 she was granted a final TOP SECRET security clearance. Nonetheless, the fact remains that she was not awarded the MOS nor did she serve on active duty in the MOS.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010578
The applicant requests her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 be corrected from 23 September 2005 to 26 August 2004 (the date she completed the Electronic Warfare/Signal Intelligence Course) or 7 September 2004 (the date she arrived at her first duty station). In a self-authored statement, dated 7 June 2008, the applicant states that: a. she enlisted under the ACASP program, formerly known as the stripes for skills program, which qualifies non-prior service-members with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004957C070205
Evidence of record shows the applicant declined a separation physical examination three months later on 7 June 1977. There is also no evidence of record to show he was ever medically unfit to perform his duties. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error now under consideration on 16 June 1977; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 15 June 1980.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004335C070206
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Although the applicant contends that he should have been given a medical discharge, evidence of record shows he underwent an enlistment physical examination on 20 June 1977 and was found qualified for enlistment with a physical profile of 111111 by competent medical authorities. Evidence of record shows the applicant declined a separation physical examination two months later...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025124
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 6 April 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, under the EDP and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). The applicant had requested the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgrade his discharge to an honorable discharge. (3) Item 25 of the applicant's DD Form 214 indicates that he did not have a valid personnel security investigation status at the time of his separation.