IN THE CASE OF:	.

		BOARD DATE:	  9 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110003992 


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, correction of the following information in her record to show: 

* she was serving in the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) when she was injured, not the Regular Army (RA)  
* her enlistment date versus her active duty date is in error
* her narrative reason for separation should not show the trainee discharge program (TDP)
* at the time of enlistment she had 1 year of college instead of just a high school diploma

2.  The applicant states the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has refused her medical care for an injury she sustained during training as an ARNG Soldier.  She adds that:

* she had no medical issues when she enlisted in the ARNG, but she was injured in 1981 during basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO
* she experienced problems with her leg and knee during a road march
* the VA is only looking at her active duty service, they do not recognize her as a veteran, and they will not give her service-connected disability compensation
* her neurologist recently told her to stop walking in an attempt to relieve her pain
* one of her sergeants had a problem with her because her last name was similar to the last name of an individual the sergeant held a grudge against
* she was denied correctly fitting boots and clothing and her meals were restricted because she was accused of being overweight
* she tripped or fell during a road march and she sustained an injury to her right leg and knee
* she became so sore that she could not stand without rocking back and forth; instead of receiving medical care, she was told she was not ready to be a Soldier
* she had already had torn cartilage in her chest, her leg was messed-up and she had problems with her hand
* she has submitted her paperwork through multiple agencies on several occasions and she just wants her issues resolved 

3.  The applicant provides:

* Self-authored statement about her life, family, financial situation, and other issues
* VA letter, dated 2 November 1984
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* MIARNG discharge letter, dated 3 February 1982
* DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document)
* Enlistment and discharge Standard Forms (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History)
* SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) prepared at the time of enlistment and discharge
* Enlistment Agreement Certificate
* Immunization Record
* DD Form 93 (Record of Emergency Data)
* DA Form 2139 (Military Pay Voucher)
* MIARNG Orders to active duty for training (ADT)
* Separation packet
* SF 558 (Emergency Care and Treatment)
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* NGB Form 22A (Correction to NGB Form 22)
* Department of Military Affairs, congratulatory letter, dated 11 September 1981
* VA letter, dated 7 September 1984
* SF 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care)
* Letters written between the applicant and Members of Congress
* Multiple letters from the VA
* VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim)
* VA Form 21-526 (Veteran's Application for Compensation and/or Pension)
* Multiple Sick Call Slips
* 2006 and 2002 letters from medical doctors
* Various civilian, state, and county medical documents, radiology report, and other related documents

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 shows he enlisted in the MIARNG for a period of
6 years on 13 July 1981.  Her DD Form 1966/2 (Statement of Enlistment) shows she indicated she had graduated from Fowlerville High School in June 1979 and that she attended Olivett Nazarene College, Kankakee, IL, from September 1979 to June 1980 but she did not graduate.  She was assigned to Detachment 1, 746th Ordnance Company, 146th Transportation Battalion, Howell, MI. 

3.  On 27 September 1981, the MIARNG published Orders 246-10 ordering her to active duty for basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, SC.

4.  She entered ADT on 4 November 1981 and she was assigned to A Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Basic Training Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

5.  On 24 December 1981, she was counseled by her senior drill sergeant who stated:

* [the applicant] is unsure of herself and she lacks self-discipline
* She cries during counseling regardless of how much the counselor tries to get her to relax
* On 5 November 1981, she was counseled after she failed 11 out of
22 tasks during Phase I of basic training 
* On 13 November 1981, she was counseled on her diagnostic Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) -- she performed zero push-ups, 2 sit-ups, and ran 1 mile in 10:35 (ten minutes and thirty five seconds)
* She was in the 5th week of basic training and she still could not perform one push-up
* She was counseled on 17 November 1981 on a lack of coordination and aptitude; she could not execute drill movements nor could she march despite time spent to teach and reinforce this basic skill
* On 23 November 1981, she was counseled on her attitude and motivation but she did not improve
* On 24 November 1981, she was again counseled regarding a lack of effort on the APFT; she made no effort to improve her physical conditioning
* On 2 December 1981, she was counseled on her attitude, motivation, self-confidence, and self-discipline; she cried throughout the session and stated "she could not do it"
* On 7 December 1981, she fraudulently faked sudden illness
* On 8 December 1981, she reported to sick call 45 minutes late; she claimed she could not breathe and that she passed out the day before
* On 9 December 1981, the drill sergeant and other platoon members saw her trip over a rock 
* On 12 December 1981, she was counseled regarding the TDP

6.  On 18 December 1981, her immediate commander advised her that he intended to recommend her for discharge under the provisions of paragraph
5-33, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), TDP.  The specific reasons for his recommendation were her lack of aptitude and motivation to successfully complete basic training.  In addition, she was unable to adjust to the Army environment and she lacked the desire to become a productive Soldier.  He did not believe retaining her in the Army was justified.

7.  On 18 December 1981, she acknowledged notification of the proposed discharge action and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-33 of Army Regulation 
635-200, the effect on future enlistment in the Army, and of the procedures and rights that were available to her.  She acknowledged she understood that if she did not have sufficient service due to non-completion of requisite active duty time, VA and other benefits normally associated with completion of honorable active service would be affected.  She elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf but she elected to have a separation medical examination if her separation action was approved.

8.  Subsequent to her acknowledgement, the applicant's immediate commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the TDP.  He indicated that the applicant:

* Performed poorly on the APFT
* She was unable to perform a correct push-up and she was able to complete only 2 sit-ups
* She made absolutely no effort to improve her physical fitness
* She had problems with basic drills and ceremonies despite extensive reinforcement training
* She failed 11 tasks during Phase I - by far one of the worst scores in the company
* She was unable to perform any of the simple obstacles on the confidence course
* She was unable to grasp the fundamentals of basic rifle marksmanship
* She missed several road marches and numerous ranges
* She was extremely immature and did not possess the motivation, self-discipline, or proper attitude to graduate from basic training
* She did not possess the necessary Soldiering qualities that would enable her to perform in the military

9.  On 23 December 1981, she was counseled regarding her failure of the APFT. She stated that she injured her body while trying to do push-ups.  

10.  On 24 December 1981, she was again counseled by her unit first sergeant about the challenges/problems she faced during basic training.  After talking with her, the first sergeant opined that the applicant could not adjust to being away from a sheltered life.  Although she tried, she was unable to keep up with her peers.  

11.  On 30 December 1981, she underwent a separation physical examination.  The military doctor noted that she had chronic right knee patellar-femoral symptoms but found her otherwise fully qualified for separation.  

12.  On 4 January 1982, her intermediate commander recommended that she be discharged, due to her lack of aptitude and poor physical conditioning.  He stated that she performed far below academic and physical fitness standards.  Although she claimed that she was motivated, she admitted she was unable to accomplish what it takes to become a productive Soldier.  Due to her inability to meet the Army's standards and requirements it was impossible for her to progress any further.  

13.  On 12 January 1982, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge.  On 18 January 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms she completed 2 months and 15 days of creditable active military service.  Additionally, this form shows in:

* Item 16 (High School Graduate or Equivalent) - "X" in the "Yes" block 
* item 23 (Type of Separation) - "Release from ADT and Discharge from Reserve of the Army" 
* item 25 (Authority for Separation) - "Paragraph 5-33, Army Regulation 635-200
* item 26 (Separation Code) - "JET"
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) - "TDP Marginal or Nonproductive"

14.  On 3 February 1982, by memorandum to her chain of command, the MIARNG stated that as a result of her discharge from the Army under the TDP, she would be discharged from the ARNG in accordance with paragraph 7-9a of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management). 

15.  She was discharged from the ARNG on 18 January 1982.  Her NGB Form 22 shows she completed 6 months and 6 days of total service for pay.

16.  On 2 November 1984, the VA reviewed her claim for service-connection for torn cartilage in the chest and ankle based on her ARNG records but determined that these conditions were neither incurred nor aggravated by her service.  Accordingly, the VA denied her request.

17.  Thereafter, specifically, in the 2000s, she began a campaign to have the VA grant her service-connected disability compensation.  She requested her military records, submitted various applications through the VA and other service organizations, and communicated her intent through Members of Congress.  She submitted multiple sick call slips and/or chronological records of medical care related to routine illnesses such as sinuses, ankle pain, and right eye pain.

18.  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 TDP.  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, 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 duty on the 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.

19.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) states that the SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty.  The regulation in effect at the time established SPD code JET as the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers who were separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-33 (TDP) of Army Regulation 635-200.

20.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  Chapter 2 of the regulation in effect at the time contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  For item 16, check the "Yes" or "No" block if the Soldier is a high school graduate or has a General Education Development Certificate. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant raised various issues in her application.  She essentially contends the VA unjustly denied her service-connected disability compensation despite that her injuries occurred during basic training.  She also contends she completed 1 year of college. 

2.  With respect to her education, the evidence of record shows upon her enlistment, the applicant indicated she had completed high school and some college.  The DD Form 214 in effect at the time required a "Yes" or a "No" entry in block 16.  Since she had graduated from high school, the "Yes" block is correctly checked.  

3.  With respect to her injuries during basic training, the evidence of record shows the applicant underwent a separation physical examination wherein the military doctor noted she had chronic right knee patellar femoral symptoms; however, she was found fully qualified for separation.  There is no evidence in her records and she did not provide any evidence that these injuries warranted processing through the Army disability system. 



4.  With respect to her active service, she entered ADT on 4 November 1981 and she was discharged on 18 January 1982.  She completed 2 months and 15 days of creditable active service which is properly captured on her DD Form 214.  The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active service.

5.  With respect to her ARNG service, she enlisted in the ARNG on 13 July 1981 and she was discharged on 18 January 1982.  She completed 6 months and 
6 days of inactive service which is properly captured on her NGB Form 22.  The NGB Form 22 is a summary of a Soldier's total ARNG service. 

6.  The period from 13 July 1981 (her date of enlistment) to 3 November 1981 (one day prior to the date she entered ADT was inactive service.  The issuance of a separate DD Form 214 for this service is not warranted because there is no evidence she performed active duty during this period.

7.  With respect to her service-connected disability compensation, this is a VA issue and is not within the purview of this Board.  Additionally, the ABCMR does not correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for other programs or benefits.  The applicant is advised to contact her local or Regional VA Office regarding any entitlement to benefits or VA related issues.

8.  With respect to her discharge, the evidence of record shows she performed far below academic and physical fitness standards, she lacked motivation and self-discipline, and she was unable to accomplish what it takes to become a productive Soldier.  In effect, she demonstrated behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  Accordingly, her immediate commander initiated separation action against her.  Her separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

9.  At the time the applicant was ordered discharged she was a member of the ARNG on ADT.  Both the applicant's characterization of service and narrative reason for separation are in accordance with the regulation in effect at the time.  The type of separation is correctly shown as "Released from ADT and Discharged from Reserve of the Army" and her narrative reason for separation is correctly shown as "TDP Marginal or Non-Productive."  There appears to be no error or injustice related to this entry.



10.  In view of the foregoing evidence, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for 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)                                         AR20110003992



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110003992



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1