RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000668


      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. Maria C. Sanchez              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dean A. Camarella             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau               |     |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 that his entry level discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he currently has an uncharacterized
discharge which is given to recruits who have served less than 180 days
and/or was not able to adapt to military life.  He continues that shortly
after joining the Army, a message was received that his father was gravely
ill and that his presence was needed at the Bronx Municipal Hospital in New
York.

3.  The applicant further states he was granted permission to see his
ailing father and after his return, his heart and mindset was not on the
Army, but consumed on the fact that his father was dying.  He continues
that a sergeant in the unit suggested he should obtain a trainee discharge
since he was in the middle of advanced individual training.  The applicant
states that his quality of work was suffering due to the distractions;
however, contends he should have been offered bereavement leave considering
he had more than five months of exemplary service.

4.  The applicant indicates he was discharged on 18 March 1987 and his
father passed away on 24 March 1987.  The applicant contends that he tried
twice, in 2004 and in 2005, to enlist in the Army National Guard and was
twice denied.  He states that in the second attempt, he was informed that
the medical waiver was disapproved due to his discharge and less than
favorable psychological evaluation.

5.  The applicant concludes that since he was denied the opportunity to
serve his country, his service record should be changed to reflect
honorable service.

6.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty); a Department of Health, The City of
New York Certificate of Death; a letter from a civilian physician, dated 18
August 2005; a New York Army National Guard Liaison letter, dated 25 August
2005; two Departments of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau
memoranda, dated 31 August 2005 and 4 October 2005; an Application Exam
Disposition Form, dated 5 May 2005; an undated Applicant Medical Evidence
Disposition Form; a letter from the Army National Guard, dated 17 May 2004;
a self-authored letter, dated 17 May 2004; four character letters; and his
resume in support of his application.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 18 March 1987, the date of his discharge from active duty.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 30 December 2005.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 October 1986 for a
period of 3 years and was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri to attend
basic combat training.

4.  The applicant's service record confirms he was formally counseled by
members of his chain of command on 12 separate occasions between 23 October
and 3 March 1987, for his lack of self-discipline, lack of motivation, and
poor academic skills with low test scores.  On 10 February 1987,
nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for three
specifications of failing to obey lawful orders.

5.  There is no evidence in the available records which show that the
applicant sought assistance through his chain of command, clergy, or any
other military officials regarding his father's illness and subsequent
death.

6.  On 3 March 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander of the
proposed separation action to release him from active duty under the
provisions of Chapter 11 (Trainee Discharge Program) of Army Regulation 635-
200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations).

7.  On 3 March 1987, the applicant acknowledged the notification of
separation and understood he would receive an entry level separation with
uncharacterized service.  He elected not to make a statement, stated he did
not desire a separation medical examination, and that he did not wish to
consult with military or civilian legal counsel.

8.  On 7 March 1987, the applicant's commander initiated discharge action
under provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, Trainee Discharge
Program. The commander stated that the applicant no longer desired to
remain in the Army and has become apathetic towards training.  The
commander continues that the applicant was purposely failing to support his
desire to be discharged and that he has been a disciplinary problem since
he entered the unit.

9.  On 12 March 1987, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation
for discharge and directed the applicant be separated with an
uncharacterized description of service.

10.  On 18 March 1987, the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized
description of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 11-3a (entry-level status performance and conduct).  He was given
a reenlistment code of 3 and a narrative reason for separation of "entry-
level status performance and conduct."  The applicant completed 5 months
and 12 days of creditable active service with no lost time.

11.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the
applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his
discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 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 does 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.  Unless
the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a Soldier
will be awarded an uncharacterized characterization of service if in an
entry-level status.  (For Regular Army Soldiers, entry-level status is the
first 180 days of continuous active duty.)

13.  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 (emphasis added), 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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general
discharge is 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 the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his entry level discharge to an
honorable discharge based on the fact that he had five months of exemplary
service.

2.  Contrary to the applicant's contention of having an exemplary service,
evidence shows he was counseled on numerous occasions for his inability to
adapt to military life and low academic scores.  Evidence also shows he
received nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey lawful orders.

3.  A chapter 11 discharge is used for entry-level Soldiers not qualified
for retention for one of several reasons, including not meeting minimum
standards prescribed for successful completion of training.  The
applicant's commander cited his lack of motivation and inability to pass
academic tests.  The uncharacterized discharge and the reason for discharge
were appropriate considering all the facts and available evidence.

4.  An uncharacterized discharge is not intended to be a negative
reflection of a Soldier's military service.  It merely means that the
Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of
service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.  The applicant received it
in part because of the length of his service and not solely because of the
reason for his discharge.



5.  After a review of the applicant's record of service, it is evident that
his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel.  Additionally, his service is
deemed uncharacterized in view of his numerous counseling, nonjudicial
punishment, and completion of less than 180 days of active service.
Therefore, he is not entitled to either a general or an honorable
discharge.

6.  Based on the foregoing, the applicant's uncharacterized discharge is
correct as currently constituted and there is no basis to amend his
discharge to show that he was honorably discharged.

7.  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.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 18 March 1987; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 17 March 1990.  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

_RTD____  _RMN__  _DAC____  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.

                                       _Richard T. Dunbar __
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000668                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060817                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHAR                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1987/03/18                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, para 11-3a                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Entry level status performance and      |
|                        |conduct                                 |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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