RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070002449


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Conrad V. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine R. Moya             |     |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 Item 24 (Character of Service)
of her
6 September 1990 separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that Item 24 of her DD Form 214 should
be corrected by leaving the entry blank or by entering the proper
information.  She indicates that Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation)
contains the entry Expiration of Term of Service (ETS).

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of
her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 6 September 1990, the date of her release from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 8 February 2007.

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 record shows she enlisted in the Army National Guard
(ARNG) on 15 April 1984.

4.  On 22 May 1989, the applicant entered active duty to attend basic
combat training (BCT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  She completed BCT
and was released from active duty and returned to her ARNG unit on 21 July
1989.

5.  On 2 July 1990, the applicant entered active duty to attend advanced
individual training (AIT) at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  On 6 September 1990,
she completed AIT and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M
(Motor Transport Operator).  At this time, she was released from active
duty and returned to her ARNG unit.  The DD Form 214 she was issued at this
time shows she completed 2 months and 5 days of active duty service during
that period
(2 July 1990-6 September 1990).

6.  Item 23 (Type of Separation) of the applicant's 6 September 1990 DD
Form 214 contains the entry "Release From Active Duty Training", Item 24
contains the entry "Uncharacterized", Item 25 (Separation Authority)
contains the entry "AR 635-200, Chapter 4" and Item 28 contains the entry
"Expiration of Term of Service".  The applicant authenticated this
separation document with her signature in Item 21 (Signature of Member
Being Separated) on the date of her release from active duty.

7.  On 14 April 1995, the applicant was honorably discharged from the ARNG
after completing a total of 6 years of military service.  At the time, she
held the rank of specialist (SPC) and had earned the Army Service Ribbon,
National Defense Service Medal, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal
and General Thomas J. Stewart Medal.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations) prescribes the policy for the administrative separation from
active duty of Army enlisted personnel.  Section II contains guidance on
the types of characterization and/or descriptions of service.  Paragraph 3-
9 states, in pertinent part, that a separation will be described as entry-
level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a
Soldier is in entry-level status (ELS).  The regulation defines ELS for
Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers and states, in pertinent part, that for RC
Soldiers ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) for one
continuous period, ELS terminates 180 days after beginning training.  For
Soldiers ordered to IADT for the split or alternate training option, it
terminates
90 days after beginning Phase II AIT (Soldiers completing Phase I BCT
remain in ELS until 90 days after beginning Phase II).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the "Uncharacterized" description of
service contained in Item 24 of her DD Form 214 is incorrect was carefully
considered.  However, by regulation, service will be described as
"Uncharacterized" if separation is initiated while a Soldier is in an ELS
and RC Soldiers who complete BCT remain in an ELS until 90 days after
beginning AIT.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant completed BCT on 21 July
1989, and did not enter active duty to complete AIT until 2 July 1990.
Therefore, during the period of her active duty service covered by the DD
Form 214 in question (2 July through 6 September 1990), she remained in an
ELS.  Given the applicant was separated prior to completing 90 days of
active duty service during her AIT phase of training, her service was
properly described as uncharacterized in accordance with the applicable
regulation.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to
support granting the requested relief.
3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 6 September 1990, the date of her
releaser from active duty.  Therefore, the time for her file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 5 September 1993.  She
failed to 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

__CVM__  __DED __  __ERM__  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.




                                  _____Conrad V. Meyer_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070002449                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/08/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |Uncharacterized                         |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1990/09/06                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ELS ETS                                 |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  2100 |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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