BOARD DATE:	  7 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110015770 


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 records to show he was honorably discharged for disability instead of administratively discharged with an uncharacterized discharge.

2.  The applicant states the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted him a service-connected disability rating and he is a member of the Disabled Veterans of America.  He would like his discharge changed so he can qualify for a VA loan to buy a house.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1988.  The highest grade/rank he held was private/E-1.

3.  He attended basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Knox, KY, from 20 October 1988 to 19 December 1988.

4.  On 26 October 1988 while in BCT, he received a psychiatric evaluation.  The medical authority psychiatrically cleared him for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

5.  His records contain multiple DD Forms 689 (Individual Sick Slip) which show he went to sick call on various occasions during BCT for routine complaints, including a urine infection, urology return appointment, follow-up appointment and x-ray, and sore throat.

6.  His records also reveal an extensive history of negative counseling by members of his chain of command for various infractions, including:

* missing training to attend sick call on 10 days within a 3-week period
* lying to a noncommissioned officer
* failing to meet training/qualification standards
* lacking ability to cope with the training environment

7.  On 13 December 1988, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him for entry-level performance and conduct in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  The commander cited the specific reasons as the applicant's failure to meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, self-discipline, and an inability to adapt socially or emotionally to the military environment.

8.  On 13 December 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of separation action.  He was advised of the basis for his contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effects of a waiver of his rights.  He also acknowledged that he understood if his discharge were approved, he would receive an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 14 December 1988, he signed a medical examination of separation statement of option indicating he did not desire a separation medical examination.  The medical authority also signed the statement indicating the examination was not required.

10.  Subsequent to this acknowledgement, the applicant’s immediate commander recommended the applicant's separation from the Army with the issuance of an entry-level separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, due to the applicant's inability to adjust to the military environment.

11.  On 15 December 1988, the separation authority reviewed the proposed separation action and approved an entry-level separation (uncharacterized) in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.  On 19 December 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

12.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, and his characterization of service was uncharacterized.  This form shows he completed a total of 2 months and 7 days of creditable active service.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 sets policy and provides guidance for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct while in an entry-level status.  It states when separation of a member in an entry-level status is warranted by unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort, or failure to adapt to the military environment, the member normally will be separated per this chapter.  This separation policy applies to enlisted members of the Regular Army who have completed no more than 180 days active duty on the current enlistment by the date of separation, have demonstrated they are not qualified for retention because they cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline; have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service; or have failed to respond to counseling.

14.  Chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-200 describes the different types of characterization of service.  It states 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.

15.  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.

16.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  It states the medical treatment facility commander with primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically-disqualifying condition.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence shows the applicant appeared to have lacked motivation and self-discipline and showed an inability to adjust to the military environment by refusing to restart training.  Accordingly, his immediate commander recommended his separation under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, his separation accurately reflects his overall record of service.

	a.  During the first 180 days of continuous active military service, a member's service is under review.  When separated within the first 180 days, service is usually not characterized unless the circumstances of the separation warrant a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  An honorable characterization may be given only if the service clearly warrants that characterization by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military duty and is approved by the Secretary of the Army.

	b.  This uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative; it is not derogatory.  It simply means the Soldier did not serve on active duty long enough to qualify for a specified characterization of service.  The applicant in this case received the appropriate character of service and he provided no evidence to show it is in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for changing his character of service.

2.  With respect to the applicant's medical issues:

	a.  There is no evidence in his records and he did not provide any evidence that shows he suffered from an illness or an injury that rendered him unable to perform the duties required of his grade and military specialty and would have warranted his entry into the Physical Disability Evaluation System.

	b.  The evidence shows he performed poorly in basic training.  His physical performance was attributed to the lack of physical training and lack of motivation, not due to a medical condition.

3.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for discharge upgrades solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' or medical benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.

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.



      _________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)                                         AR20110015770



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110015770



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1