MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 19 August 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003087762

         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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		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 character of her discharge be changed from an uncharacterized discharge to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That after applying for a job she was told that her Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214) stated poor performance and conduct. She states that she did nothing wrong and that she just did not want to be a soldier at that time. She states that at the time of her discharge she was told that the character of her discharge would change to a general discharge after a certain time frame and it never happened. She concludes by stating that she was not aware that she had to file paperwork in order to get the character of her service changed.

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

On 12 July 1982, she enlisted in the Army at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.

The applicant was still in basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, when she was counseled on 29 July 1983. During the counseling session, she informed her senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) that she had a history of heart murmur and back pain. She was told that she would be sent to sick call for an evaluation.

On 15 August 1983, the applicant was counseled for her repeated disregard for authority and her negative attitude as far as being a soldier in the Army. Her senior NCO stated that she had managed to stay on a physical profile and sick call for an extended period since she began BCT. Her senior NCO further stated that she could be a great asset to this country; however, she projected little motivation. She was told that she would be under observation for a change in her behavior and that if there was no change she would be sent to see the company commander for action governed under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.

She was counseled again on 16 August 1983, regarding her performance. During the counseling session, the company commander stated that she had a good grasp of general military subjects; however, her attitude toward the Army and facing up to the pressures and stress of BCT was very poor. The applicant told the commander that she wanted to quit BCT because it was harder than she thought it would be. She also stated that she was unable to do one pushup. The commander stated that she could complete BCT with the proper motivation and attitude; however, he believed that she had made up her mind that she would not put forth the effort to master the minimum standards required of a basic trainee. The commander stated that her mental stamina had reached its lowest level of endurance and he recommended that she be evaluated by the Community Mental Health Activity (CMHA).
On 18 August 1983, the applicant was again counseled regarding her poor motivation and lack of self-confidence. During this counseling session, she stated that she had a back problem; however, she could continue training. She stated that she had a problem coping with military discipline. The commander noted that her main problem was that she just had no desire to be in the military because she had neither motivation nor confidence in herself to continue BCT. She was also counseled by a third party concerning her stress problem and how it was interfering with her attitude to become a potentially good soldier in the military. The applicant stated that she had been accepted by two colleges; however, she made a decision to enlist in the Army and that her mother told her that it was a good decision. She stated that she would like to become a computer programmer one day and that she was experiencing a lot of problems in the Army.

On 22 August 1983, the applicant was referred to the CMHA for evaluation. During the evaluation, she again stated that she did not like the Army and could not cope with the stress of BCT. She stated that she was eating less; had lost five pounds over a period of 1 week; and was having problems sleeping. She indicated that she had a concrete plan if she were to be granted a separation from the service. The attending physician indicated that she should be considered for separation as soon as possible as her physical condition would only get worse if she had to remain in the service. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by her command.

The applicant’s commanding officer counseled her again on 23 August 1983, as she had not shown any noticeable signs of improvement in any of the areas of deficiencies, especially motivation. She again expressed to her commander that she could not cope and no longer desired to be in the Army. The commander noted that it would be futile to continue to spend valuable time and resources in an effort to change her direction and he recommended that she be discharged under the trainee discharge program as soon as possible.

On 25 August 1983, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, under the Trainee Discharge Program, based on her lack of motivation, attitude and failure to adapt emotionally to military life. She acknowledged receipt of the notification and indicated that she understood that, if approved, she would receive an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. She also waived the right to consult with counsel and to submit a statement in her own behalf.





The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 6 September 1983. Accordingly, on 14 September 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, based on entry-level status performance and conduct. She had completed 2 months and 3 days of total active service and the character of her service was uncharacterized.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to the character of her discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry-level status. It states, in pertinent part, that separation under this chapter applies to soldiers who are in entry-level status and before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty and have demonstrated that they cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life. Entry-level status is defined as the first 180 days of continuous active duty. It further states that the character of service for members separated under the provisions of this chapter will be uncharacterized.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:

1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. However, the evidence of record fails to support her contention that she was told her uncharacterized discharge would automatically become a general discharge after a certain time frame. She was properly discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as she was in an entry-level status with less than 180 days of service. Her service was properly uncharacterized.

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

___mvt__ __fe ____ __jm____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087762
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2003/08/19
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830914
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 11
DISCHARGE REASON	516
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 503	144.2500/TRAINEE DISCHARGE
2. 514	144.2800/MEDICAL CONDITION
3.
4.
5.
6.