IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    13 September 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110001467 


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 Orders 89-117, issued by Headquarters, Fifth United States Army, Fort Sam Houston, TX, dated 8 May 1987, by:

	a.  Changing her rank from private (PV2) to private first class (PFC);

	b.  Adding the 16 weeks she served at Fort Jackson, SC for Active Duty Training (ADT); and

	c.  Deleting the "Entry Level Status Separation" entry as the type of discharge and replacing it with the entry "General Discharge."

2.  She further requests correction of item 35 (Record of Assignments) of her
DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II), to include:

	a.  All dates she attended the Unit Training Assemblies (UTA) while assigned to the 5503rd U.S. Army Hospital (USAH), Columbia, MO; and

	b.  The 3 days she served at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC), Fort Gordon, GA.

3.  She states her records were altered by her supervisor who had a dislike for her.  Her supervisor did not submit the correct time she spent on UTAs or the 
16 weeks of ADT at Fort Sam Houston.  She also was advanced to the rank of PFC while assigned with the 5503rd USAH.

4.  She provides:

* Pages 1 and 3 of her DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document - Armed Forces of the United States), dated 29 August 1983
* Her DA Form 2-1 prepared and reviewed on 5 October 1983
* Her U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Discharge orders, dated 8 Mary 1987
* A letter from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), dated
18 January 2010

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.  Her DD Form 4 shows she enlisted in the USAR for on 29 August 1983 for a period of 6 years.  In conjunction with her enlistment, the applicant signed a
DA Form 3540 (Certificate and Acknowledgement of Service Requirements for Individuals Enlisting, Reenlisting, or Transferring into Troop Program Units of the USAR).  This form states that she would be required to attend all scheduled training assemblies unless excused by proper authority.  If she accrued 9 or more unexcused absences during any continuous 365 day period, she may be considered an unsatisfactory participant.

3.  Additionally, she would be responsible for complying with all official orders and replying to correspondence she may receive.  Further, if she failed to participate satisfactorily for any reasons, she may be declared an unsatisfactory participant and separated from the service with an appropriate discharge, which may include a less than honorable discharge.

4.  Her record contains Orders 168-13, issued by the Military Entrance and Processing Station (MEPS), Kansas City, MO, dated 29 August 1983, ordering her to Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT) to attend Phase I, Basic Training (BT) at Fort Jackson, SC beginning on 10 October 1983.
5.  Orders 234-703, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, dated 2 December 1983, shows she completed Phase I (BT) of her split option training.  She was released from IADT on 11 December 1983 and she was returned to her USAR unit.

6.  Orders 17-8, issued by the same headquarters, dated 24 January 1984, ordered her to IADT to attend Phase II, Advanced Individual Training (AIT) for military occupational specialty (MOS) 71G (Patient Administrative Specialist).  She was scheduled to report to Fort Sam Houston on 23 July 1984; however, Orders 152-20, dated 6 August 1984, revoked these orders.

7.  Her commander prepared a DA Form 4447-R (Adjustment Certification Worksheet), dated 5 July 1985.  This document shows she was administratively advanced to the rank of PV2/E-2 effective 5 July 1985.  This document further shows she completed basic training and she was awaiting entry for AIT.

8.  The applicant’s record shows she was ordered to Annual Training (AT) at DDEAMC, Fort Gordon for the period 17 to 31 August 1985.

9.  A request for exception to policy for the applicant to attend IADT Phase II (AIT) for MOS 71G was generated on 26 August 1985.  The memorandum also showed that after completion of Phase I (BT), she had attempted to enlist in the U.S. Air Force; however, this did not occur.  

10.  On 30 September 1985, the applicant wrote a letter to her unit first sergeant and immediate commander requesting to be excused from military duty until 
30 August 1986 due to her full-time student status.  She stated if nothing could be arranged to excuse her from duty, she preferred to be immediately discharged  due to the stressful circumstances.

11.  On 17 October 1985, her request for exception to policy was approved and she was scheduled to attend AIT on 30 December 1985.  

12.  On 1 November 1985, her immediate commander officially notified her by Registered Mail of her obligation to attend IADT Phase II (AIT) beginning on 
30 December 1985.  He also stated that failure on her part to attend training may result in her discharge from the USAR and forfeiture of her enlistment bonus.

13.  She provided a DA Form 2-1 which shows in:

	a.  Item 4 (Assignment Considerations) the entry "BT only (Phase I), Fort Jackson Spt Tng [Split Training] 16 Wks [Weeks], 840203";

	b.  Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) the highest rank she attained was PV2/E-2 on 5 July 1985; and 

	c.  Item 35 (Record of Assignments):

		(1)  She enlisted in the USAR on 29 August 1983 and she was assigned to the 5503rd USAH, Columbia, MO;

		(2)  She was ordered to 16 weeks of IADT on 4 October 1983 at Fort Jackson, SC;

		(3)  She began BT on 14 October 1983 at Fort Jackson, SC; and

		(4)  On 11 December 1983, after completing BT she returned to her USAR unit.

14.  On 26 October 1985, the applicant's unit Patient Administration Officer prepared a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), subject:  Memorandum for the Record (Weight Control), that shows she was placed on the Army Weight Control Program on 14 October 1984.  The officer states in May 1985 the applicant was weighed and counseled for not making progress on the Army Weight Control Program and that she was granted an additional 6 months on the program.  The officer noted that he had not been able to document her progress in the program because she was not presented for monthly weigh-ins since May 1985.  He recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program).

15.  Her record is absence of documentation to show she attended IADT Phase II (AIT) on 30 December 1985.  It also does not show she was advanced to PFC/
E-3 at any time.

16.  The applicant’s commander sent her three letters, subject:  Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence (Drill Attendance) by Registered Mail on
6 May, 23 October, and 21 November 1986 informing her that she had accrued
9 unexcused absences within a 1-year period.  However, all of the notification letters were unclaimed and returned to sender.

17.  On 20 January 1987, the commander, 5503rd USAH, initiated a memorandum concerning the applicant's 9th unexcused absence from the scheduled UTA, which occurred on 16 November 1986.  He stated that she was absent because of unknown reasons and that she had failed to respond in any manner or to offer an explanation.


18.  On 17 February 1987, her commander initiated a separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 5 (Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct).  He noted the reason for the action was the applicant's failure to attend the scheduled UTAs and to ship (attend IADT Phase II (AIT)).  He advised her of her right to submit a rebuttal or statement in her own behalf or to waive her rights.

19.  The applicant provided a copy of Orders 89-117, dated 8 May 1987.  These orders show she was discharged from the USAR under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 on 8 May 1987.  She was given an Entry Level Status Separation, in the rank of PV2/E-2.

20.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

21.  Army Regulation 135-91, paragraph 4-9 states that enlisted members who are obligated by statute or contract will be charged with unsatisfactory participation when, without proper authority, they accrue in any 1-year period a total of 9 or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills.
   
22.  Army Regulation 135-178, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of enlisted personnel of the USAR and Army National Guard (ARNG).  Chapter 5 prescribed the criteria and procedures for the separation of Soldiers while in an entry level status.  The policy applied to Soldiers who had:

* voluntarily enlisted in the ARNG or the USAR
* completed no more than 180 days of continuous active military service on current enlistment
* demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention
* failed to respond to counseling

23.  Army Regulation 135-178, Glossary of Terms, defines entry level status for ARNG and USAR Soldiers, and states that entry level status begins upon enlistment in the ARNG or USAR.  For Soldiers ordered to IADT for one continuous period, it terminates 180 days after beginning training.  For Soldiers ordered to IADT for the split or alternate training option, it terminates 90 days after beginning Phase II (AIT).  Soldiers completing Phase I (BT) remain in entry level status until 90 days after beginning Phase II (AIT).


24.  Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 2-9, currently in effect, describes the considerations and conditions for the character of service upon separation from the ARNG and USAR.  It states a general (under honorable conditions) discharge is appropriate when a Soldier's service has been honest and faithful and is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier's military record.

25.  Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction) provides guidance on the promotion of USAR enlisted members.  Paragraph 3-5 of the regulation which was in effect on 1 November 1985, stated that a Reservist is not promotable if he or she is overweight.

26.  Army Regulation 640-2-1 (Personnel Qualification Records (PQR)), in effect at the time, prescribed the policy for preparing, maintaining, and disposing of all parts of the PQR.  For entries of information in item 35, it stated for Reserve personnel to enter period of active duty of 90 days or more.  It did not provide for the entry of Annual Training or UTAs less than 90 days in length.  The DA Form 2-1 was a management tool used by military commanders and personnel managers to effectively manage a Soldier’s career.  The form was not intended to be a historical record of a Soldier’s career nor intended for use outside, or beyond, an individual’s military service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In September 1985, the applicant requested to be excused from attending all military duties or an immediate discharge due to her full-time student status.  Her command notified her she was required to attend IADT, Phase II (AIT) at Fort Sam Houston on 30 December 1985; however, she chose to ignore this directive.  As a result, she failed to complete Phase II (AIT) of her IADT; therefore, she remained in an entry level status.

2.  In addition to her failure to attend the required IADT, her record shows she accumulated 9 unexcused absences in a 1-year period.  She was required to attend all scheduled UTAs under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-91, which she did not follow.  She was declared an unsatisfactory participant and also violated the conditions set forth in her DA Form 3540.

3.  By regulation, Reserve Soldiers who completed BT remained in an entry level status until 90 days after beginning AIT.  Since she had not completed Phase II (AIT), she remained in an entry level status, and as such, her chain of command chose to discharge her under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 5, for entry level status performance and conduct with an "Uncharacterized" characterization of service.  Therefore, all requirements of law were met and she was discharged accordingly.

4.  She was advanced to the rank of PV2/E-2 on 5 July 1985.  On 26 October 1985, her command recommended her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-9 for failing to make progress on the Army Weight Control Program.

5.  Army Regulation 140-158, in effect at the time, stated that Soldiers who were overweight were not in a promotable status.  She has not provided sufficient evidence and her record is void of any documentation to show she was advanced to the rank of PFC/E-3 at any time during her military career.  Therefore, her discharge order correctly reflects her grade at the time of separation as PV2/E-2.

6.  The applicant also requested to add to item 35 of her DA Form 2-1 the dates she attended the scheduled UTAs, the 16 weeks she attended IADT, and the
3 days of ADT at Fort Gordon, GA.

7.  Item 35 of her DA Form 2-1 properly shows her periods of completed IADT in accordance with applicable Army regulations.  Entries for periods of active duty less than 90 day for Reserve personnel are not required by regulatory guidance.  As such, adding entries years after the fact serves no useful military purpose.  The absence of information on this form does not indicate or create an error or injustice in an individual’s record and as such does not require correction by the Board.

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)                                         AR20110001467



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110001467



8


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1