IN THE CASE OF 

		BOARD DATE:	    3 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120011250 


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, that his discharge under the trainee discharge program (TDP) be changed to a discharge by reason of physical disability and that he be issued a more favorable Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly discharged under the TDP and issued a “secret” code that essentially makes him unemployable.  He goes on to state that the Army aggravated his condition to the point that he cannot gain employment and the SPD code not only serves to assassinate his character but prevents him from getting a good job.

3.  The applicant provides a somewhat incoherent statement and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation 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 Regular Army on 12 September 1975 for a period of 3 years and was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri to undergo his basic training.

3.  On 9 October 1975, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Department of the Army (DA) message date time group (DTG) 011510Z August 1973 and the TDP.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant did not have the motivation and discipline necessary to be a Soldier, that he had not been able to adjust to military life, that his attitude was not conducive to a military training environment, and that he exhibited no desire to learn the required skills necessary to become a productive Soldier. 

4.  The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel, declined a separation medical examination, and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 14 October 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

6.  Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 20 October 1975 under the provisions of DA Message DTG 011510Z August 73 and the TDP.  He had served 1 month and 9 days of active service and was issued a SPD Code of “JNF” which represents the TDP and a Reenlistment Code of “3.”

7.  The applicant applied to the Enlistment Eligibility Activity (EEA) in St Louis, Missouri in 1981 for a waiver of his RE Code in order to reenlist and his request was denied.

8.  DA Message DTG 011510Z August 1973, subject: Evaluation and Discharge of Enlistees before 180 Active Duty Days, established the TDP.  It provided the criteria for the separation of personnel under the TDP who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability, or aptitude to become a productive Soldier.  It states, in pertinent part, that commanders may expeditiously discharge members of the Regular Army, Army National Guard or U.S. Army Reserve who have completed 179 days or less of active duty and have demonstrated that they cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life.  Commanders were authorized to issue either an Honorable or General Discharge and the separation code for discharge under the TDP was "JNF."  The appropriate RE Code to be assigned to individuals discharged with a separation code of "JNF" is a "3."  Under today's standards, individuals discharged with less than 180 days of active duty service will receive a discharge with "UNCHARACTERIZED" service.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  He was properly notified of the commander's intent to recommend separation and he waived all of his rights and elected not to submit matters in his own behalf.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he was issued a “secret” SPD Code has also been noted and found to lack merit.  He was issued an SPD Code of “JNF” which is simply to denote that he was discharged under the TDP.  All individuals separated from the service are issued an SPD Code that corresponds to the reason for separation.

4.  The applicant’s contention that he should have been discharged for medical reasons has also been noted and found to lack merit.  There is no evidence submitted with his application or in the evidence of record that suggests that the applicant was deemed medically unfit for retention or separation or that his discharge was related to his medical condition.  Additionally, the applicant declined a separation physical at the time of his discharge.

5.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there appears to be no basis to grant his request.



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)                                         AR20120011250





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120011250



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1