IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	26 August 2009   

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090006291 


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 Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code on his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he doesn't understand the reason for giving him the code.  He adds that he did not know that the discharge was bad.

3.  In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

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 U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program on 12 June 1978.  He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 30 October 1978.

3.  The applicant' service records contain a series of 8 counseling forms which are directly related to his discharge:

	a.  On 5 February 1979, the applicant was counseled for sleeping in class.

	b.  on 6 February 1979, the applicant was counseled for sleeping in class and for working lessons out of sequence.

	c.  on 8 February 1979, the applicant was counseled for his failure to make progress in class, for sleeping in class, and for not making an honest effort.

	d.  on 9 February 1979, the applicant was counseled for scoring very low in a test that was administered to him.  The applicant blamed the low test results on his inability to stay awake during the test.

	e.  on 9 February 1979, the training supervisor wrote a student counseling report on the applicant for delivery to the applicant's commander.  In this report, the training supervisor stated that the applicant was failing to make any further effort to learn in the course.  He had not attained the minimum qualification in typing.  He was deficient in International Morse Code and he was not demonstrating progress.  The training supervisor recommended that consideration be given to reclassifying the applicant from the military occupational specialty (MOS) in which he was being trained.  His present attitude in refusing to make a reasonable effort to learn indicated that retention for continued training would serve no purpose and was not in the best interests of the Army.

	f.  on 9 February 1979, the applicant was counseled for showing a negative attitude and for being inattentive.

	g.  on 12 February 1979, the applicant was counseled for having been removed from his MOS course for not trying.

	h.  on 15 February 1979, a counseling report was written on the applicant for being completely unmotivated toward the Army.  The applicant stated he had family problems at home and needed to be at home to help raise his 16-year old brother.  He also stated that he did not want to be in the Army and only wished to go home.  The applicant's counselor opined that he had a poor attitude and he was just using his family problems as an excuse to leave the service.  He, the counselor stated, was of no value to the Army with his attitude.
4.  On 26 February 1979, the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 5, paragraph 5-33, because he could not meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of a lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline. 

5.  On 26 February 1979, the applicant acknowledged the notification of proposed discharge action under the Trainee Discharge Program.  In his acknowledgement, the applicant indicated that he did not desire to make a statement or submit a rebuttal in his behalf; however, a statement was made.  In his statement, the applicant stated that he could not pass his lessons because he just couldn't get used to getting up every morning and at all times.  He added that another reason was that he could not get back into the language in which they were speaking.  He also stated that he wanted to forget about all of that but he knew he needed something.

6.  On 26 February 1979, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the Trainee Discharge Program.  In the recommendation, the commander stated the service member (SM) had an extremely poor attitude and had no desire to succeed in the Army.  The applicant, the commander said, had family problems and wanted to leave the service.

7.  On 28 February 1979, the applicant's battalion commander met with the applicant to determine if the applicant should be recommended for discharge under the Trainee Discharge Program.  The applicant's battalion commander prepared a TRADOC Form 871-R (TDP Counseling) to document the result of a meeting/interview.  Following their meeting, the battalion commander wrote that the SM was interviewed and he did not have the desire or motivation to become a productive Soldier.  The SM was failing his MOS course and did not qualify for reclassification due to low aptitude area scores.  Additional efforts with the SM would be a waste of Army resources.  He recommended approval of the applicant's discharge under the Trainee Discharge Program.

8.  On 5 March 1979, the approval authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-33.  The approval authority directed that the applicant receive an honorable discharge.

9.  On 8 March 1979, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-33a, under the 

Trainee Discharge Program.  The SPD Code applied to the applicant's copy of the DD Form 214 is, "JET," which is translated to: "Entry level status performance and conduct, or entry level status performance - pregnancy."  On the date of his discharge, the applicant had completed 4 months and 8 days active duty service with no time lost.  The record shows he had not completed training for award of an MOS.  The MOS reflected on his DD Form 214 is 05C0O (Basic Trainee).

10.  On 8 March 1979, the applicant was provided a Headquarters, US Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, Fort Gordon, Georgia, Letter, Subject:  Reason for Separation, in which he was specifically advised of the type of discharge he was receiving, the authority therefore, and information relative to his reenlistment eligibility.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Paragraph 5-33 of this regulation, in effect at the time, governed the Trainee Discharge Program.  This program provided for the separation of service members who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive Soldiers or have failed to respond to formal counseling.  The regulation essentially requires that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual training, on the job, or service school training prior to award of a military occupational specialty and must not have completed more than 179 days of active on their current enlistment by the date of separation.  The regulation provided that Soldiers may be separated when they have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention due to failure to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. 

12.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (Statutory or other directives), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the separation program designator (SPD) codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are intended exclusively for the internal use of Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data.  This analysis may, in turn, influence changes in separation policy.


13.  Army Regulation 635-5-1, which was in effect on the date of the applicant's discharge, shows that individuals separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-33 would have an SPD code of "JET" applied to their DD Form 214 if they were discharged from the Army for:  "Entry level status performance and conduct, or entry level status performance - pregnancy."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise 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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulation with no indication of procedural error which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant's conclusion that he received a bad discharge is incorrect.  The evidence clearly shows that he received an honorable discharge.  Because of this, there is no need to upgrade his discharge.

5.  The evidence does show that the applicant was discharged from the Army under the Trainee Discharge Program.  The copy of the DD Form 214 the applicant submitted to the Board shows the SPD code that was used in conjunction with his discharge is the one that is used on DD Forms 214 for Soldiers discharged from the Army under the Trainee Discharge Program.  As indicated in the applicable regulation, SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  SPD codes are neither "good" nor "bad."

6.  The evidence shows that the SPD code that was used on the individual's copy of his DD Form 214 corresponds to the narrative reason and authority for the applicant's discharge; therefore, there is no reason to change the SPD code from "JET" to any other SPD code.




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)                                         AR20090006291





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090006291



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1