IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  5 May 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090000245 


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 her discharge status be changed from uncharacterized to honorable, with the issuance of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).   

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that when she tried to get her discharge upgraded in 1990 she was informed that she could not get her discharge upgraded.  She was given the wrong information and she must have a DD Form 214 to apply for Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits.  She was in a car wreck while on leave during boot camp.  

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

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 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), in pay grade E-1, on 22 October 1986, for 8 years.  She was ordered to Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT) for approximately 18 weeks or completion of basic and military occupational specialty (MOS) training.  Subsequently, she entered on active duty on 20 November 1986 for her basic training phase at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

3.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows she did not complete basic training and was not awarded a military occupational specialty.

4.  On 21 January 1987, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened and considered the applicant's complaints of headaches and neck pain.  The history of the existed prior to service (EPTS) condition stated that the applicant was an
18-year old female with a history of a motor vehicle accident with neck, head trauma, and pain.  She was reinjured in the same area in a motor vehicle accident on 3 January 1987 and now had headaches and neck pain which prohibited training.  Upon physical examination, the applicant was diagnosed with musculoskeletal neck pain. The EPSBD found the applicant's condition EPTS and was not service-aggravated.  The EPSBD recommended the applicant be separated from the USAR for failure to meet medical procurement standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 2, paragraph 2-31b(3).  

5.  On 22 January 1987, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations of the EPSBD and elected to be separated from the USAR.

6.  On 22 January 1987, the applicant's commander recommended her separation and on the same day, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation.

7.  The applicant was issued orders discharging her from the USAR, in pay grade E-1, on 4 February 1987, with an uncharacterized discharge.

8.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs the medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, and appointment.  Chapter 2 specifies the standards to ensure that individual are medically qualified.  Paragraph 2-31 (Neurological Disorders) prescribes the causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction.  

Paragraph 2-31b(3) states that paralysis or weakness, deformity, discoordination, pain, sensory disturbance, intellectual deficit, disturbances of consciousness, or 
personality abnormalities regardless of cause which is such a nature or degree as to preclude the satisfactory performance of military duty, as a cause for rejection for enlistment.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 
establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards.  It specifies that Soldiers who are not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment may be separated.  Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty.  Such findings will result in an EPSBD.  This board must also be convened within the Soldier's first 6 months of active duty.  A Soldier with existing prior to service conditions does not qualify for retention.

10.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve
Enlisted Administrative Separations) states that for the purposes of characterization of service, the Soldier’s status is determined by the date of notification as to the initiation of separation proceedings.  It provides that separation will be described as an entry level separation with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry level status.  
It further states, in pertinent part, that a member of a Reserve component who is who is serving under a call or order to active duty for 180 days or less begins entry level status upon enlistment in a Reserve component.  Entry level status for such a member of a Reserve component terminates as follows:

   a.  180 days after beginning training if the Soldier is ordered to ADT (active duty for training) for one continuous period of 180 days or more; or

   b.  90 days after the beginning of the second period of ADT if the Soldier is ordered to ADT under a program that splits the training into two or more separate periods of active duty.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, governed the preparation of the DD Form 214 for all personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from the Active Army.  Personnel included, in pertinent part, members of the USAR separated after completing IADT which resulted in the award of an MOS, even though the active duty was less than 90 days.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 22 October 1986 and entered on IADT on 20 November 1986.  On 21 January 1987, an EPSBD found her condition EPTS and recommended her separation from the USAR under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 2, paragraph 2-31b(3).  The applicant concurred with the findings and the recommendation of the EPSBD on 22 January 1987 and elected to be separated.  The appropriate separation authority approved her separation from the USAR on the same day.

3.  The evidence shows the applicant was found not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards by an EPSBD.  As such, she was separated from the USAR.  In accordance with pertinent regulations, she remained in an entry level status at the time of separation because she served less than 180 days after beginning training.  Therefore, her characterization of service was appropriately determined to be "Uncharacterized."

4.  An uncharacterized discharge is not meant 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.  As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an honorable discharge.

5.  The evidence shows that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Without evidence to the contrary, it is believed that the applicant's separation and characterization of service were both proper and equitable. 

6.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is also not entitled to the issuance of a DD Form 214.  The evidence of record shows the applicant, as a member of the USAR on active duty, did not complete her ADT, and was not awarded a military occupational specialty.







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)                                         AR20090000245



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090000245



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1