IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  30 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120004881 


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 that the characterization of her service be changed from uncharacterized to honorable.

2.  The applicant states her Department of the Veterans Affairs (VA) letter shows she was granted 30-percent service-connected compensation due to injuries she received while serving on active duty.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* marriage license
* VA letter

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 military record shows she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve under the Delayed Entry Program on 7 December 1992.  She enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-2 on 3 February 1993.  She did not complete training for award of a military occupational specialty (MOS).

3.  On 10 and 13 March 1993, while still in initial entry training, she was counseled for:

* excessive days of missed training
* refusing to train
* stating she no longer wanted to train and wanted to get out of the Army
* unsatisfactory performance

4.  On 16 March 1993, 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 was unwilling to adjust to military life, refused to train, and refused to recycle into another company.  The applicant lacked the motivation, self-discipline, aptitude, and desire to complete basic training.  Further training was not justified.  She was advised of her rights.

5.  On 16 March 1993, the applicant acknowledged the proposed separation action.  She also acknowledged that she would receive an entry-level status separation with uncharacterized service.  She elected not to consult with counsel or to submit a statement in her own behalf.

6.  On 19 March 1993, the separation authority approved the applicant's entry-level separation for unsatisfactory performance or conduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, with uncharacterized service.

7.  She was discharged in pay grade E-2 on 24 March 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, by reason of entry-level status performance and conduct with uncharacterized service.  She was credited with completing 1 month and 22 days of net active service with no time lost.

8.  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 they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline for military service; or they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  Service would be uncharacterized for separation under the provisions of this chapter.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  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 inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant began basic training; however, while in training she received performance counseling related to her unsatisfactory performance, desire to get out of the Army, and her unwillingness to adjust to military life.  She did not complete training for award of an MOS.  Her company commander stated the applicant lacked the motivation, self-discipline, aptitude, and desire to complete basic training and further training was not justified.

2.  Her contention is not sufficiently supported by her records or her application and submitted documents.  There is no error or injustice in her record.  She was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process.  She acknowledged the proposed separation and that she would receive an entry-level status separation with her service described as uncharacterized.

3.  The uncharacterized service was and still is appropriate and there is no basis to change it.  An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service.  It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated. 
As a result, there is no basis for granting her request for an honorable discharge.

4.  Additionally, the ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrades of or changes to discharges based solely on an individual's award of VA service-connected compensation.


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)                                         AR20120004881



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120004881



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1