BOARD DATE:	  22 March 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100021237 


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 correction of his uncharacterized discharge to show an honorable discharge.

2.  He states his character of service was honorable until he received his discharge.  He adds it was only because he was injured during training and received a disability discharge that his service was listed as uncharacterized.  He offers the injury was not his fault, but because of the uncharacterized status shown on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), he cannot receive rehabilitation benefits.

3.  He provides a copy of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings).

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 on 11 May 1989 for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and proceeded to advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia.  He was assigned to Company G, 244th Quartermaster Battalion, 23rd Quartermaster Brigade.

3.  A message, dated August 1989, subject:  Request for Line of Duty Determination, stated the applicant injured himself on 16 June 1989.  He sustained loose osseous bodies [bone and/or cartilage] to his right knee during obstacle course training.

4.  On 2 August 1989, a medical evaluation board was completed and recommended he be referred to a PEB for "post-traumatic arthritis of the right ankle with loose osseous bodies."

5.  On 10 August 1989, a PEB convened which found his condition of post-traumatic arthritis of the right ankle with loose osseous bodies existed prior to service, but was service aggravated.  The board determined his medical condition prevented satisfactory performance of his duty in his grade and military occupational specialty.  The PEB found him physically unfit and recommended a rating of 10 percent.  The board also recommended that he be separated from the service with severance pay, if otherwise qualified.

6.  His DD Form 214 shows he was separated on 30 August 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 4-24e(3), for physical disability with severance pay.  He received an "uncharacterized" description of service.  This document also shows he was credited with completing 3 months and 20 days of active military service.

7.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-40, appendix C-10b, in effect at the time, stated that in computing pay for disability severance pay, members with less than 6 months of service could not receive severance pay.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) describes the different types of characterization of service.  It states 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 an entry-level status, except when characterization under other than honorable conditions 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.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 defines entry-level status for Regular Army Soldiers as the first 180 days of continuous active duty or the first 180 days of continuous active duty following a break of more than 92 days of active military service.  It further states that entry-level status separations will be uncharacterized.

11.  Army Regulation 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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was properly discharged.  All entry-level discharges are uncharacterized unless a characterization under other than honorable conditions is warranted; or when directed by Headquarters, Department of the Army, based upon unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.  None of these conditions apply to his situation.

2.  Uncharacterized discharges carry no stigma.  They simply mean the Soldier has not served the requisite amount of time to warrant an honorable characterization of service.

3.  The available evidence confirms the applicant was separated for physical disability incurred in the line of duty.  If the Department of Veterans Affairs is indeed denying him health benefits because of his uncharacterized discharge, he should consider appealing that decision to the proper authorities in that Department.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.


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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      ________________________
                 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)                                         AR20100021237



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100021237



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1