BOARD DATE:	  28 January 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090013963 


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:

The applicant defers to her counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests correction of the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her characterization of service as honorable.

2.  Counsel states that the applicant had served for a period of 166 days and she was discharged in an entry-level status with her service uncharacterized.  Counsel contends that it was unjust to discharge the applicant at the tail end of her entry-level period so as to saddle her with an uncharacterized description of service.  If she had been discharged only 11 days later, she would have been awarded an honorable characterization of service.

3.  Counsel states that the applicant enlisted on 29 March 2006 at 41 years of age.  She understands several languages, including Arabic and Arabic dialects, Egyptian, French and Algerian.  As a language translator, she would have been a formidable resource to the U.S. Army.  For the applicant, serving in the U.S. Army was a noble goal.  She pursued her goal with as much tenacity and resolute conviction as could be expected from a 41-year old woman.

4.  Counsel states that the applicant was informed by her commander that she was determined to be a Homeland Security risk and she was not qualified for enlistment in the U.S. Army.  This determination was based on the applicant's force protection screening which found that her affiliation with the U.S. Army might be viewed negatively by her extended family in Algeria.  Additionally, her alleged dreams about Osama Bin Laden and the terrorism of 11 September 2001, before the events had occurred, which caused her to have fears of retribution, represented a force protection risk that was unnecessary.

5.  Counsel states that the applicant did not fully comprehend the content of the documents she signed wherein she declined to have her case heard by an administrative separation board.  She did not understand that as a result of an uncharacterized discharge, she would encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.

6.  Counsel states that Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations), provides that an uncharacterized description of service is required for Soldiers who are in an entry-level status unless Headquarters, Department of the Army determines otherwise.  Counsel contends that the applicant's quality of service deserved an honorable characterization of service.

7.  Counsel provides, in support of the applicant's application, a five-page brief, dated 27 July 2009; two copies of her DD Form 214 for the period ending 15 September 2006; and a Headquarters, 308th Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Meade, MD memorandum, subject:  Results of CI [Counterintelligence]/Force Protection Screening of 09L [Translator Aide] Trainees 10 August thru 13 August 2006, dated 16 August 2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's enlistment contract shows the following:
   
   a.  The applicant attended and graduated from Prince George Public High School, located in Adelphi, MD, from September 1979 to July 1985.
   
   b.  On 29 March 2006, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) for 8 years.  She enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program, beginning in the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E-4.  She was assured school training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 09L and a USAR enlistment bonus of $10,000.00.  The applicant was subsequently assigned to Fort Jackson, SC, for enrollment in the Basic Combat Training Course.

2.  Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), Brooklyn, NY, Orders 6103008, dated 13 April 2006, ordered the applicant to initial active duty for training (IADT). 
3.  In a memorandum from Headquarters, 308th Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Meade, dated 16 August 2006, the applicant was identified as a security risk.  The memorandum contains the following information and comments:

	a.  The applicant stated very emphatically that she had dreams about Osama Bin Laden and the events of 11 September 2001 prior to the actual events occurring.

	b.  The applicant stated that Osama Bin Laden had altered his appearance to look like a female; had a prosthetic left arm, and he had crossed into China with a child and a man posing as his husband.

	c.  Significant issues were discovered as a result of the applicant's prior residency in Algeria and of the current residency of her immediate family members in Algeria.  The applicant stated that only her brother in New York was aware of her enlistment in the U.S. Army; and that individuals and extended family members in Algeria would consider her enlistment as a betrayal.

	d.  The applicant stated that she had been a victim of threats and intimidation.  Knowledge of her affiliation with the U.S. Army would place her family in imminent danger.  She planned to travel to Algeria during her first leave or break from basic training to inform her mother about her enlistment.

	e.  The applicant's fears of retribution, as well as her "premonition dreams" represented a force protection risk that was unnecessary.

4.  On 7 September 2006, the applicant's company commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations, chapter 7 (Defective Enlistments/Reenlistments and Extensions) because she had failed to provide relevant facts about herself and family.  It was determined that the applicant was a security risk and therefore, she was not qualified for enlistment in the U.S. Army.  He recommended an uncharacterized discharge.

5.  On 7 September 2006, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification.  She indicated that she had been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and she had declined to do so.  She further indicated that she waived representation by counsel and she elected not to make a statement in her own behalf.

6.  On 8 September 2006, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval and that she receive an uncharacterized discharge.
7.  On 11 September 2006, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized character of service.  Accordingly, she was discharged on 
15 September 2006.  She had completed 5 months and 4 days of IADT.

8.  On 10 October 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides, in pertinent part, that a Soldier may be separated on the basis of an erroneous enlistment if it would not have occurred had the relevant facts been known by the Government.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 further provides that a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status.  For USAR Soldiers, entry level status begins upon enlistment in the USAR.  It terminates 180 days after the beginning of training.  On a case-by-case basis, Headquarters, Department of the Army can determine that an honorable characterization of service is warranted based on a clear presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.  This characterization is authorized when the Soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, convenience of the Government, and Secretarial plenary authority.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Counsel contends that the applicant's DD Form 214 should be corrected to show her characterization of service as honorable.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  Since she was separated before she had completed 180 days of continuous active duty, her service was properly recorded as uncharacterized.

4.  Counsel's contention that the applicant did not fully comprehend the content of the documents she signed is not supported by any documentary evidence.  Her attendance and graduation from high school in the United States suggests that she had sufficient knowledge of the English language to understand what she was reading.  Furthermore, as a 41-year old woman, it is more than reasonable to presume that she would have made inquiry if there was anything in those documents that she did not understand.

5.  Counsel has not sufficiently supported his contention that it was unjust to discharge the applicant at the tail end of her entry-level period so as to saddle her with an uncharacterized description of service.

6.  There is no available evidence of record showing that the applicant's personal conduct; performance of duty; or unusual circumstances merited consideration by Headquarters, Department of the Army to consider her service to be honorable.

7.  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 U.S. Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.

8.  In view of the above, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20090013963



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090013963



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1