IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        9 April 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090000896 


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 that the characterization of service on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from “uncharacterized” to “honorable.”

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he performed as best he could in the military occupational specialty (MOS) he chose but he was not given an opportunity to achieve his full potential.  He was unfairly washed out of that MOS and reclassified into another MOS in a new State.  This was hard for him to digest and messed up his whole focus on the military.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his information technology (IT) diploma, dated 4 April 2008; a copy of his National Honor Society membership certificate, dated 4 April 2008; a copy of his college transcripts, dated 9 March 2008; and a copy of his college program showing his selection as a valedictorian, in support of his 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 records show he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years and 22 weeks on 18 August 1992.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, on or about 24 October 1992, and proceeded to Fort Sam Houston, TX for completion of advanced individual training (AIT) in MOS 91B (Medical Specialist).  However, he was relieved from the 91B course of instruction on or about 15 January 1993 for academic deficiencies and was ordered reclassified into MOS 13P (Multiple Launch Rocket Automated Data Systems Specialist) at Fort Sill, OK.

3.  On 5 April 1993, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance (failed two MOS courses, 91B and 13P).  

4.  On 5 April 1993, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of notification of separation action in accordance with chapter 13 of AR 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance.  He further declined to consult with consulting counsel and elected not to submit a written statement on his own behalf.

5.  On 16 April 1993, the immediate commander initiated separation action against the applicant for unsatisfactory performance in accordance with chapter 13 of AR 635-200.  The commander stated that the applicant failed to meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of the MOS 13P course and that it was not considered feasible or appropriate to accomplish another disposition because the applicant had failed two MOS courses.  The immediate commander further recommended a General Discharge Certificate.  

6.  On 21 April 1993, the separation authority waived the rehabilitation requirements, approved the applicant's discharge from the Army for unsatisfactory performance, and directed that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 23 April 1993.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was released from active duty for unsatisfactory performance in accordance with chapter 13 of AR 635-200 with an uncharacterized character of service.  This form also shows that he completed 
8 months and 6 days of creditable active military service.

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

8.  AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  Chapter 
3 of that regulation describes the different types of characterization of service.  It states in pertinent part that an Uncharacterized Separation is an entry-level separation.  A separation will be described as an entry-level separation if processing is initiated while a member is in entry-level status, except when characterization under other than honorable condition is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case or when The Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as Honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.  For Regular Army Soldiers, entry-level status is the first 180 days of continuous active duty or the first 180 days of continuous active duty following a break in service of more than 92 days of active military service.

9.  AR 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

10.  AR 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the characterization of service on his DD Form 214 should be changed from “uncharacterized” to “honorable.” 

2.  The available evidence shows the applicant displayed a pattern of unsatisfactory performance in failing to complete two MOS courses.  Accordingly, his immediate commander recommended separation under the provisions of chapter 13 of AR 635-200.  However, the separation authority directed that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.  Additionally, at the time the separation was approved, on 21 April 1983, the applicant had completed 8 months and 
4 days of net active service—he was no longer in an entry-level status (the first 180 days of continuous active duty).  It is unclear why the U.S. Army Transition Center issued the applicant a DD Form 214 with an uncharacterized characterization of service.

3.  In view of the foregoing evidence, it appears that the applicant received an improper characterization of service.  Therefore, he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to a general under honorable conditions and correction of his records to show an upgraded discharge. 

4.  An 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 clearly inappropriate.  The applicant in this case was discharged for unsatisfactory performance.  His record is void of any noteworthy accomplishments, acts, or a special recognition.  Therefore, he does not meet the criteria for an upgrade to an honorable discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X____  ___X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by revoking the applicant's DD Form 214, dated 23 April 1993 and reissuing him a new DD Form 214 that shows his character of service as "under honorable conditions (general)."

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable. 



																XXX
      _______ _   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20090000896



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090000896



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1