IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 December 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120011437


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, an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to honorable or general.

2.  The applicant states he was young and his little sister lived with his father who was unstable and later committed suicide.  He also states he had no immediate family who could help at that time because they lived out of the city in a remote area.

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's record shows he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program on 27 July 1988.  He was discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve on 15 August 1988 and he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 August 1988 in pay grade E-1.  He did not complete advanced individual training for award of a military occupational specialty.

3.  A DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 25 January 1989, shows the applicant was counseled on his failed academic and service elimination recommendation based on his lack of motivation and attitude.  He acknowledged receipt of the counseling and concurred with the information reflected in the counseling session.

4.  On 3 February 1989, the applicant's unit commander initiated action to separate him from active duty for entry-level performance and conduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 11-3.  The unit commander stated the reason for the proposed action was the applicant's academic failure, poor physical condition, and lack of self discipline.

5.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action.  He also acknowledged he understood he would receive an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service.  He elected not to consult with counsel and not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  He was discharged on 13 February 1989 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, with uncharacterized service.  He completed 5 months and 28 days of net active service at the time of his discharge.

7.  There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to his characterization of service within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance or conduct, or both, while in an entry-level status.  This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had demonstrated that 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 they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  The separation policy applied to Soldiers who could not meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline.  The regulation required an uncharacterized description of service for separation under this chapter.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 further stated that separation under chapter 11 applied to Soldiers who were in an entry-level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty and demonstrated that they could not or would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life.

10.  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.

11.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  His contention has been noted; however, it is not sufficiently supported by the evidence of record.  He was properly discharged in accordance with the pertinent regulation with due process.  His entry-level status characterization of service was and still is appropriate based on his brief period of service and reason for his discharge.  He was appropriately advised of this during his counseling and separation processing.

2.  The evidence shows his unit commander initiated action on 3 February 1989 to discharge because he could not meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of a lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline.  He acknowledged the proposed action and he was discharged on 13 February 1989.  

3.  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.

4.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to a change in the characterization of his service.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20120011437



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120011437



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1