RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016700


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Ms. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Hubert Fry                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James Hastie                  |     |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 his uncharacterized service be
characterized as honorable.

2.  The applicant states that with an uncharacterized discharge, he has had
to suffer the indignity of people saying that he did not really serve his
country; that he is not a veteran; and that the only thing that he
completed was his training.  He states that he did not ask to be discharged
and was motivated to succeed.  He states that he passed his advanced
individual training and was still released from the Army.  The applicant
states that the phrase "uncharacterized" has left him in limbo about his
military service and has caused him grief over the years when he attempted
to receive veteran's preference during job searches as well as real estate
loans.  He states that it is depressing that people do not believe or
respect the fact that he did serve his country during its call to arms.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
appeal.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 22 October 1991.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 29 November 2006.

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.  On 4 April 1991, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army
Reserve in Oakland, California, for 8 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He
enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years and 22 weeks on 9 May 1991.

4.  The available records indicate that he successfully completed his basic
combat training.  However, his records fail to show that he ever
successfully completed his advanced individual training.


5.  The applicant was counseled on ten separate occasions between 20 August
1991 and 9 October 1991 for missing formation; failing his Army Diagnostic
Physical Fitness Tests; being overweight; drinking alcohol while he was
still in phase IV of training; and substandard performance.  During a
counseling session conducted on 7 October 1991, he was unofficially
informed that he was being recommended for discharged from the Army under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, due to lack of
motivation.  He was informed that if the recommendation for discharge was
approved, he would be furnished a general discharge.  He was also informed
that until the day that he was discharged, he would conduct himself like a
soldier and maintain the standards of the company.  He was told that a
discharge resulting in a less than honorable character of service may
deprive him of benefits from the Veteran's Administration, reentry into the
military and acceptability for civilian jobs.

6.  On 15 October 1991, the applicant was officially notified that he was
being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 11, due to entry level performance and conduct.  The commander
cited substandard performance as the basis for his recommendation for
discharge.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and he
waived his rights (including his right to a separation physical) and opted
not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also indicated that he had
no desire to consult with counsel and that he understood that he would
receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
17 October 1991 and he directed the issuance of an entry level separation
with uncharacterized service.  Accordingly on 22 October 1991, the
applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 11, due to entry level performance and conduct.  He had completed 5
months and 14 days of net active service and his service was
uncharacterized.

9.  A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.








10.  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 AND CONCLUSIONS:

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 the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, he was in an
entry level status and he had not completed his first 180 days of service
prior to initiation of the discharge proceedings.  He acknowledged that he
understood that he would receive an entry level separation with
uncharacterized service.  The fact that he is experiencing difficulties due
to his uncharacterized service is not a basis for characterizing his
service as honorable.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 22 October 1991; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 21 October 1994.  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

___HF  __  ___TO __  ___JH __  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.




                                  ______  Hubert Fry__________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060016700                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070522                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHAR                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19911022                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 11                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  516  |144.2900/ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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