IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 OCTOBER 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080011308 


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 characterization of her service be changed from uncharacterized to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she believes she deserves an honorable discharge and she is having a hard time obtaining employment.  She also states that she requested to be released from the Army because she missed her children.  She was a good Soldier and did not have any conduct problems.   

3.  In support of her application, the applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 

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 military records show she enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-3, on 10 January 1990, for 4 years.  She did not complete training for assignment in a military occupational specialty.

3.  On 15 March 1990, the applicant received counseling for her performance. She was advised that her performance during the first week of basic training was unsatisfactory because she failed her physical training (PT) test and every event. On 23 March 1990, she received counseling again for her performance.  She was advised that her performance during the second week of basic training was unsatisfactory because she did poorly on the diagnostic PT test.  On 30 March 1990, she non-concurred with the counseling and stated she wanted to get out of the Army. 

4.  On 31 March 1990, the applicant received counseling reference her unit commander’s recommendation to have her separated from the Army.  

5.  On 31 March 1990, the applicant’s unit initiated action to release her from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct.

6.  On 31 March 1990, the applicant acknowledged the proposed separation action and elected not to consult with counsel, not to submit a statement in her own behalf, and not to undergo a separation physical.  She also acknowledged that she would receive an entry-level separation with the character of her service described as, uncharacterized.

7.  On 4 April 1990, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation because her emotional state, separation from her family made it impossible for her to perform as a Soldier.

8.  The applicant was discharged from active duty, in pay grade E-3, on 6 April 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct.  The character of service was uncharacterized.  She was credited with 2 months and 27 days net active service.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, paragraph 11-3a of that regulation, provided for the separation of personnel who had completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty and had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both).  The policy 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.  Service would be uncharacterized for separation under the provisions of this chapter.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  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 inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to a change of the characterization of her service.  She has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.  

2.  The evidence shows the applicant received performance counseling related to her performance in physical training.  During a second counseling session, it was the applicant who non-concurred and specifically requested she be separated from the Army.  The evidence also shows she was not able to "Soldier" because of her emotional state which was due to separation from her family.  

3.  The applicant’s contentions are not sufficiently supported by her records or her application.  There is no error or injustice in her record.  She was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations, with due process.  The applicant acknowledged the proposed separation and that she would receive an entry-level separation with her character of service described as uncharacterized. The uncharacterized service was and still is appropriate, and there is no basis for change.  The description simply infers uncharacterized service and not dishonorable service.

4.  The applicant's desire to have her uncharacterized entry level separation changed to honorable, in order to obtain employment is acknowledged; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of an applicant obtaining employment opportunities.

5.  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 did not submit any evidence that would satisfy this requirement.  

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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)                                         AR20080011308



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080011308


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1