Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003386
Original file (20130003386.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  22 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130003386 


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, the daughter of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that the characterization of her mother's service be changed from uncharacterized to general.

2.  The applicant states the FSM passed away on 10 March 2012 and she was very involved in the local veteran's organizations.  She states that the FSM should be authorized a burial marker as her grave is currently unmarked.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Washburn County Veterans Service Office letter to the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 11 February 2013
* Cook County, Illinois, Certificate of Live Birth
* Notification of Change of Address
* ARBA letter, dated 13 December 2012
* State of Wisconsin Certificate of Live Birth
* Certificate of Death
* FSM's Obituary
* Email correspondence with the Veterans Service Office 
* Washburn Country Veterans Service Office letter to ARBA, dated 8 November 2012
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* General Counseling Forms
* Separation Packet
* 
Letter to the Washburn County Veterans Service Office, dated 19 March 2012
* Washburn County Veterans Service Office letter, dated 28 November 2012
* ARBA letter, dated 19 November 2012
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 20-567 (Request for Change of Address/Cancellation of Direct Deposit)
* Six letters written by the FSM

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 29 October 1984.  She was ordered to active duty for training on 27 November 1984.

2.  Review of the FSM's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), shows she was counseled on at least seven separate occasions between 26 March and 17 April 1985 for the following:

* Failing classes
* Failing tests
* Placing dirty cloths, letters, and other articles in an empty wall locker
* Being academically deficient
* Lack of attention

3.  On 17 April 1985, the FSM was notified that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 11, under the Trainee Discharge Program.  She acknowledged receipt of the notification.  After consulting with counsel, she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

4.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 22 April 1985 and directed the issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11-3a.

5.  On 26 April 1985, the FSM was released from active duty training under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11-3a, due to entry level status performance and conduct.  She completed 5 months of net active service this period and her service was uncharacterized.

6.  A review of the available records fails to show that the FSM ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  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.

	b.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  Her supporting evidence has been considered.

2.  The FSM's records show she was counseled on at least seven separate occasions due to academic/conduct deficiencies.  She had less than 180 days of continuous active duty when she was separated and she was in an entry level status.

3.  In accordance with the applicable regulation, chapter 11 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 chapter 11.

4.  The applicant has not shown error or injustice in the type of discharge the FSM received.

5.  In view of the foregoing, her request should be denied.


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.




      _______ _   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20130003386





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130003386



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004881

    Original file (20120004881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. The evidence shows the applicant began...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001051

    Original file (20140001051 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the notification for discharge, she was told that if approved she would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. The regulation required an uncharacterized description of service for separation under this chapter. The regulation required an uncharacterized description of service for separation under this chapter.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001051

    Original file (20140001051.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the notification for discharge, she was told that if approved she would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. The regulation required an uncharacterized description of service for separation under this chapter. The regulation required an uncharacterized description of service for separation under this chapter.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000570

    Original file (20130000570.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On or about 28 January 1985, he was released from confinement and returned to his basic training unit. On 8 April 1985, his immediate commander informed him of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 (Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005998

    Original file (20130005998.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 and 11 March 1993, she was counseled for her unsatisfactory performance, missing and refusing training, and being administratively discharged if her performance and conduct did not improve. On 16 March 1993, the applicant’s company commander notified the applicant of proposed action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separation), chapter 11, for motivational reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013625

    Original file (20140013625.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It states an uncharacterized separation is an entry-level separation. The evidence of record, however, demonstrates, while she was in an entry-level status, she was not performing satisfactorily as a Soldier. By regulation, a separation will be described as an entry-level separation if processing is initiated while a member is in an entry-level status (within the first 180 days of continuous active military service for Regular Army Soldiers), except when the characterization of under other...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011437

    Original file (20120011437.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022397

    Original file (20120022397.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 June 1987, the applicant's immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 (Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct (Trainee Discharge Program)), by reason of lack of motivation and discipline necessary to be a productive Soldier. On 19 August 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge from the Army in accordance...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999026243

    Original file (1999026243.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The evidence of record shows that on 26 August 1985, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l1, AR 635-200, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct, with an uncharacterized discharge. Response(s) to item(s) not addressed as decisional issue(s):During review of this case it was noted that there was an administrative error contained in item 24 (Character of Service) of the DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025501

    Original file (20100025501.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 April 1983, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, for entry level status performance and conduct. The commander cited: * her inability to meet the standards of military training * poor duty performance and attitude toward military service 5.