IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 November 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100011043 


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 his uncharacterized discharge be changed to an honorable discharge (HD).  

2.  The applicant states he was actually released from service in September 2003 according to a National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) form.  He claims the official statement of service has incorrect information regarding his discharge and incorrectly indicates he was discharged on 9 July 2002 instead of in September 2003.  He states he was involved in an motor vehicle accident in a military vehicle while he was on active duty on 26 September 2001.  He further states he was under medical review on 17 July 2002, which proves he could not have been discharged on 9 July 2002, as indicated.  He states it is clear from the evidence he is providing that he was still in the service until September 2003 and the actual date of his discharge should be 27 September 2003.  He claims this information is supported by NPRC records and forms.  

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:

* NPRC Service Request All Details, dated 7 June 2007
* Corrected Statement of Service, dated 7 November 2007
* Troy Michigan Police Department Accident Report
* Recruiter Letter, dated 23 October 2007
* Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT) Orders
* Medical Review Letter 



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows on 18 January 2000, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) for 8 years.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing are not in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  

2.  The OMPF contains a corrected Official Statement of Service issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri, dated
2 November 2007.  This document confirms the applicant entered active duty on  9 June 2000, and served until 25 August 2000, at which time he was released from active duty (REFRAD), by reason of entry level performance and conduct, and that his service was "uncharacterized."  

3.  On 10 December 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), 
after reviewing all available military records and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny his request to change the characterization and reason for his discharge.  The ADRB indicated that although the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing were not in the record, the available evidence of record confirmed his uncharacterized discharge on 9 July 2002, was authorized and directed in Headquarters, 
88th Regional Support Command (RSC), Fort Smelling, Michigan, Orders 
02-190-00016, dated 9 July 2002.  

4.  The applicant provides a Troy, Michigan police report that indicates he was involved in a vehicle accident on 26 September 2001.  He also provides a memorandum prepared by the 88th RSC Staff Nurse, dated 17 July 2002, which indicates it was determined from a review of the applicant's physical examination that he was eligible for retention but suffered from medical conditions that required follow up evaluation/treatment.  The memorandum also informs the applicant if he failed to receive the follow up evaluation/treatment he could be subject to administrative action.  

5.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted members of the Army National Guard and USAR.  The regulation defines entry level status (ELS) and states a member of a Reserve Component (RC) is in an ELS for 180 days after beginning training if the Soldier is ordered to active duty training (ADT) for one continuous period or until 90 days after beginning the second period if under a split training program of two or more periods of active duty.



6.  Chapter 8 of the same regulation provides guidance on separation for entry level performance and conduct.  It provides for separating a member if separation is initiated while in an ELS when it is determined the Soldier is unqualified for further military service by reason of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both), as evidence by inability, lack of reasonable effort, failure to adapt to the military environment or minor disciplinary infractions.  It further stipulates the service of a Soldier who is separated under this chapter will be uncharacterized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his uncharacterized discharge should be changed to an HD has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 

2.  By regulation, a RC Soldier on a split training option remains in an ELS status until completing 90 days of the second period of ADT.  In this case, the applicant never entered active duty to complete his second period of ADT, or advanced individual training (AIT).  As a result, he was still in an ELS status on the date of his discharge and, therefore, his service was appropriately described as uncharacterized at the time of his discharge.   

3.  The evidence of record does not contain the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's separation processing.  However, it does contain an official statement of service issued by HRC-St. Louis that confirms he was separated on 9 July 2002, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct and that his service was described as uncharacterized.  These documents carry with them a presumption of regularity in the discharge process.  

4.  Although the applicant provides documents indicating he was in an accident on 26 September 2001, there is no evidence his injuries from the accident rendered him unfit for further service.  In addition, he provides no evidence confirming he completed the follow up evaluation/treatment for medical conditions identified by the 88th RSC Staff Nurse in her July 2002 memorandum, indicating the memorandum was prepared before the Staff Nurse was aware he had been discharged.  

5.  Absent any evidence showing an error or injustice related to the applicant's discharge processing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the 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)                                         AR20100011043



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100011043


4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1