IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  10 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110022175 


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 change of his uncharacterized discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was unable to fire a weapon due to his fear of weapons.  At the age of 6 years old, he accidently shot someone and attempting to fire his weapon during training caused him to have a flashback.  Since his release, he now has nightmares of the incident.  He just wants to get help from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his nightmares.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 17 January 1983.  On 15 March 1983, he was discharged from the USAR DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 16 March 1983 for a period of 4 years.

3.  Between 19 April and 6 May 1983, he was frequently counseled for various infractions including:

* expressing a desire to get out of the Army
* multiple instances of failing to shave
* falling out of a platoon run
* insubordination
* failing to get out of bed
* failing to follow instructions
* failing to properly address a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
* inability to handle his weapon due to his nervousness
* not reporting to his platoon after returning from an appointment

4.  His platoon sergeant stated the applicant was very shy and lonesome.  The applicant was afraid of his weapon and he wanted out of the service.  The applicant stated he had no desire to be part of the service.  He did not believe the applicant would ever become a productive Soldier and recommended his immediate discharge.

5.  On 2 May 1983, the applicant was evaluated at the Community Mental Health Activity.  The evaluation showed he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  There was no psychiatric disease, disorder, or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.

6.  On 6 May 1983, the applicant was interviewed by a Chaplain at the request of the unit.  The Chaplain stated the applicant had a number of adjustment problems in basic training.  The applicant claimed he was not able to integrate the skill training at a satisfactory pace and he was extremely nervous around weapons, which was supported by review of his range record.  He believed the applicant would only be able to be a marginal Soldier at best and recommended consideration for the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP).

7.  On 9 May 1983, the applicant's company commander initiated action to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, for entry-level status performance and conduct.  The company commander stated the applicant failed to exhibit any behavior which would ever make him an asset to the U.S. Army.

8.  On 9 May 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged the proposed separation action.  He also acknowledged that he would receive an entry-level status separation with an uncharacterized character of his service.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 13 May 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, with an entry-level separation based on his mediocre performance as evidenced by his low mental ability and general lack of desire.

10.  On 18 May 1983, the applicant was discharged from active duty in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, by reason of entry-level status performance and conduct with service uncharacterized.  He was credited with 2 months and 3 days of net active service with no time lost.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, paragraph 11-3a, provided for the separation of personnel who had completed no more than 180 days (6 months) of creditable continuous active duty and had demonstrated they were not qualified for retention because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both).  The policy applied to individuals who had demonstrated they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline for military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  Service would be uncharacterized for separation under the provisions of this chapter.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant received performance counseling related to his unsatisfactory performance, desire to get out of the Army, failure to comply with instructions, being insubordinate at times, and inability to handle a weapon.  A Community Mental Health Service evaluation showed he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.  

2.  His contentions are not sufficiently supported by his records or his application. There is no error or injustice in his record.  He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process.  He acknowledged the proposed separation and that he would receive an entry-level status separation with his character of service described as uncharacterized.  The uncharacterized service was and still is appropriate and there is no basis to change it.

3.  An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service.  It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.  As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an honorable discharge.

4.  Additionally, the ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade or changes of discharges 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.  Additionally, the granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR.  Therefore, any questions regarding eligibility for health care and other benefits should be addressed to the DVA.

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)                                         AR20110022175



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110022175



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1