RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011342


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that her uncharacterized discharge
be upgraded and that item 24 (Character of Service), item 27 (Reenlistment
Code), item 23 (Type of Separation), item 28 (Narrative Reason for
Separation) and item 26 (Separation Code) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected.

2.  The applicant states that she sustained an injury to her knee cap
(stress fracture), while attending basic training (BT), which is indicated
on her medical records.  She also states that there were deliberate entries
placed on her         DD Form 214 which prevented her from receiving almost
22 years of benefits.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 in support of her
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 13 December 1982, the date of her discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 8 November 2004 but was not received for
processing until16 December 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's military records show she entered active duty on
19 October 1982, for training and assignment as a food service specialist
(94B), in the pay grade of E-1.

4.  Between 29 October and 6 December 1982, while attending basic training,
she received numerous counseling statements for her failure of her
diagnostic physical training (PT) test, her lack of self discipline, her
motivation, her failure to adapt to military life, her inability to conform
to military standards, and her lack of the necessary desire to become a
productive Soldier.  She was counseled on her
overall weak areas that needed improvement because her overall performance
was considered unsatisfactory.  She was advised that she was a candidate
for the trainee discharge program (TDP), under the provision of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.

5.  On 6 December 1982, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant
that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry-level status
performance and conduct.  He cited, as the basis for his recommendation,
her inability to posses the physical ability to become a productive
Soldier.

6.  The applicant waived her rights to consult with counsel and to submit
statements on her own behalf.  She indicated that she did not desire a
separation physical.  She consented to the proposed discharge action.

7.  On 6 December 1982, the commander submitted his recommendation for the
applicant's discharge to the appropriate authorities.  The applicant's
discharge was approved; however, a copy of the approval is not available in
the applicant's service record.

8.  The applicant was discharged on 13 December 1982, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, with an
uncharacterized entry-level status discharge.  On the date of her
discharge, she had completed 1 month and 25 days of creditable service.
She was issued a separation program designator (SPD) code of "JGA and
JET" and an RE Code of "3."

9.  The applicant’s medical records are not available, and the applicant
provided no documentary evidence, to corroborate her allegation that she
sustained an injury to her knee cap while attending basic training.

10.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, of the regulation, in effect
at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to
unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level
status. This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had
demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could
not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because
they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for
military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not
compatible with satisfactory continued service.  The separation policy also
applies to Soldiers who could meet the minimum standards prescribes for
successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability,
motivation, or self-discipline.  The regulation states that a Soldier is in
an entry level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days
of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation
action.  The Soldier’s service is uncharacterized when separated under this
chapter.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to
benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate
when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards
of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of
the individual.

13.  The above referred to regulation also defines a general discharge as
a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized,
it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when
the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization.

14.  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.  Army Regulation 601-210
covers eligibility criteria,
policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular
Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes
basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That
chapter includes a list of
Armed Forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

15.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and
personnel who are discharged under TDP, but the disqualification is
waivable.

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities
(regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the
separation of members from active military service, and the SPD to be used
for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the SPD of "JGA and
JET" as shown on the applicant’s   DD Form 214 are appropriate for
involuntary discharge when the narrative
reason for separation is "Entry-Level Performance and Conduct or Entry
Level Status Performance-Pregnancy."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Between 29 October and 6 December 1982, while attending basic training,
the applicant received numerous counseling statements for her failure of
her diagnostic PT test, her lack of self discipline, her lack of
motivation, her failure to adapt to military life, her inability to conform
to military standards, and her lack of the necessary desire to become a
productive Soldier.

2.  She was counseled about those areas where improvement was needed
because her overall performance was considered unsatisfactory.  She was
advised that she was a candidate for the TDP.

3.  It is apparent that the applicant failed to show the desired level of
improvement.  The applicant's commander recommended her discharge under
the TDP.

4.  All documents related to the applicant discharge are not in her service
record; however, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be
presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which
would tend to jeopardize her rights.

5.  It appears that considering all of the facts of the case, that the
type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate.

6.  The applicant's RE Code "3" is consistent with the basis for her
separation and in this case there is no basis for changing the existing
code.

7.  The applicant has submitted insufficient evidence with her application
to show that that her separation, which resulted in her receiving an RE
Code of "3," was in error or unjust.

8.  The applicant has also submitted insufficient evidence to show that the
narrative reason for separation applied to the applicant's DD Form 214 of,
"Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct" and type of separation,
"Discharge (Entry Level)," are incorrect.  Her DD Form 214 shows that she
was assigned the proper SPD code of "JGA and (JET).  Therefore, she is not
entitled to correction of her DD Form 214 to show that she was discharged
for another reason.
9.  The character of service of "uncharacterized" was appropriately applied
to the applicant's discharge based on the facts and circumstances of the
applicant's discharge.  The applicant was given a TPD and she served on
active duty for less than 180 days.  She is therefore not entitled to
amendment of her discharge to show another characterization of service on
her DD Form 214.

10.  There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none to show that she
applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

11.  The applicant allegation that she was inured while she was in basic
training has been noted; however, there is no evidence in her service
record and she has provided none to corroborate this allegation.

12.  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.

13.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 13 August 1982; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 12 August 1985.  The applicant did not file within the
3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___sk ___  ___rtd___  ___bje___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  _________Stanley Kelley________
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011342                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050901                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHAR                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19821213                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, chap 11                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

-----------------------
[pic]