IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080007848 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the character of service shown on his DD Form 214, be changed from an Entry Level Separation – Uncharacterized to General, Under Honorable Conditions; and that his DD Form 1966/6, Application for Enlistment – Armed Forces of the United States, be completed.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge should have been characterized as a General, Under Honorable Conditions, Discharge as opposed to an entry level separation – Uncharacterized Discharge.  This, he states, in effect, is concluded from review of his discharge orders.  The applicant also states that the entries shown at the bottom of his DD Form 1966/6 are incomplete and lack the necessary responses.

3.  In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.  Although the applicant indicated he was enclosing a copy of his DD Form 1966/6 and a copy of Orders 112-7, these documents were not received with his request.  These documents are on file in the applicant's service records and will be included in the resultant case file.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's service record shows that he enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) on 22 June 1984.  He was ordered to active duty for training and was assigned to the 1st One Station Unit Training Brigade, Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 4 February 1985, to undergo training in the military occupational specialty 19D, Cavalry Scout.

3.  In connection with the applicant's enlistment in the TXARNG, a DD Form 1966/[pages 1-8] was completed for the applicant.  The DD Form 1966/6 (Section IV – Other Background Data) the applicant is requesting be corrected appears was modified for the convenience of the recruiter/career counselor who was responsible for processing the applicant into the TXARNG following his enlistment.  The incomplete data items, as entered on the form, pertain to the military entrance processing station to which the applicant would report for shipment to his basic training station and later to his advanced individual training station, and the respective dates of his reporting to these locations.  The modification to the form also included the CCN (Central Control Number) and the total number of weeks the applicant was expected to be assigned to active duty for training (ADT).  These date items are included in other enlistment records/forms and were normally transposed and included by recruiting personnel to this form.

4.  The applicant's records show he was counseled by members of his chain of command on 27 February; 5, 13, 17, and 23 April; and 2 and 3 May 1985 for his having little or no motivation and for his having failed to pass required "Gate II Tests."

5.  On 8 May 1985, the applicant's unit commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Reserve of the Army and return him to his Army National Guard unit, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11 (Trainee Discharge Program).  The unit commander stated, that the specific reason for his proposed action was the applicant's inability to meet minimum standards required for the successful completion of training primarily due to his inability to read and comprehend written material.

6.  In the letter of notification, dated 8 May 1985, the unit commander specifically advised the applicant that if the discharge were approved, he would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service.

7.  In this same letter dated 8 May 1985, the applicant was notified of his rights which included the right to consult with consulting counsel, the right to submit statements in his own behalf, the right to obtain copies of documents that would be presented to the separation authority supporting the proposes action, the right to request a separation physical examination, and the right to waive his rights in the written form.

8.  On 8 May 1985, the applicant acknowledged the notification in writing and indicated that he desired to consult with consulting counsel, he did not desire to make a statement in his own behalf, he had not obtained copies of documents which were to be sent to the separation authority and he did not wish to waive his rights.  The applicant signified, by signing his letter of notification, that he understood that if his discharge were approved, he would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service.

9.  On 15 May 1985, the applicant's unit commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Reserve of the Army and returned to his Army National Guard unit under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11 (Trainee Discharge Program).

10.  On 22 May 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of the Trainee Discharge Program.  The applicant was discharged accordingly on 29 May 1985 in the rank and pay grade, Private, E-2.  On the date he was discharged the applicant had completed 3 months and 26 days service, with no time lost.

11.  The DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, the applicant was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3(3h).  Item 24 (Character of Service), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows his service was characterized as, "Entry Level Separation – Uncharacterized."

12.  The applicant was discharged from the TXARNG in accordance with Orders 112-7, Paragraph 1, State of Texas, Adjutant General's Department, Austin, Texas, which were published on 11 June 1985.  The word, "Uncharacterized" appears adjacent to the standard line which requires entry of the "Type of discharge" an individual would receive at separation.

13. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 11, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry level status.  It stated, in pertinent part, that separation under this chapter applied to Soldiers who were in an entry level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, had completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty and had demonstrated that they could not or would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life.  Entry level status was defined as the first 180 days of continuous active duty.  It further stated that the character of service for members separated under the provisions of this chapter would be uncharacterized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record an 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.

2.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge from uncharacterized to general, under honorable conditions was carefully considered; however, the applicant provided no evidence or argument upon which an upgrade of his discharge can be based.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulation in effect at the time.  The evidence also shows that the applicant voluntarily consented to the discharge and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and it appears his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  The applicant's request for the completion of those data items which were left not completed on the DD Form 1966/6, by a recruiter or career counselor, is without merit.  Even though these data items, which it appears were added by a recruiter or career counselor for his or her convenience, were not completed on the DD Form 1966/6, the applicant, according to his personnel records reported to his one station unit training station at Fort Knox, Kentucky, apparently on time, 

to undergo training in the military occupational specialty 19D.  Completion of these data items, at this point in time, approximately 23 and a half years later, will not have a direct or indirect effect on the characterization of the applicant's service.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to a general, under honorable conditions, discharge and to have those date items added to the DD Form 1966/6.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ___x____  ___x____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




      _______ _   x_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080007848





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080007848



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1