IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  6 November 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005553 


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 her entry level status character of service be changed to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she applied for automobile insurance and was denied due to her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) not showing she was honorably discharged.  She never had an issue before now whenever someone asked for her discharge papers.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of her request.

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.  On 17 September 1986, the enlisted in the Regular Army.  On 24 September 1986, she reported to Fort Jackson, SC for basic training.
 
3.  On 9 February 1987, a course director recommended elimination of the applicant due to academic failure.  The director stated she had failed 16 of 22 tests taken to that date.  The course director recommended her retention in the Army and training in another military occupational specialty.

4.  Chief Warrant Officer Four PH partially concurred and recommended her academic elimination and discharge from the service.  He stated the applicant had joined the Army as a last resort to get out of a difficult life situation and lacked the proper motivation to make further training worthwhile.

5.  On 20 February 1987, she was counseled regarding academic elimination.  She stated that she did not want to be in the service at that time.

6.  On 24 February 1987, her commander notified her that under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) he was contemplating action to release her from active duty for transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) for entry level status performance and conduct.  The reason given for the proposed action was that she couldn't meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline.  He stated that if her separation was approved her service would be uncharacterized.

7.  Her commander advised her she had the right to:

* consult with consulting counsel or civilian counsel (at her own expense)
* submit statements in her own behalf
* obtain copies of the documents supporting her separation action that would be sent to the separation authority
* waive her rights in writing

8.  She acknowledged notification of her proposed separation and that if her separation were approved she would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service.  She indicated that she did not desire to consult with counsel, did not desire to make statements on her own behalf, and did not waive the above in writing.  She understood she would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for a period of 2 years after discharge.

9.  Her commander recommended she be released from active duty for transfer to the IRR under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.

10.  On 25 February 1987, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's release from active duty.  He directed that she be transferred to the IRR.

11.  Accordingly, on 27 February 1987, she was released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, paragraph 11-3b.  She completed 5 months and 11 days of net active service this period.  Her DD Form 214 shows in: 

* item 24 (Character of Service) – Entry Level Status
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, in effect at the time, set policy and provided guidance for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry level status.

	a.  Separation was warranted when unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions was evidenced by:

* inability
* lack of reasonable effort
* failure to adapt to the military environment

	b.  The policy applied to Soldiers who:

* were in an entry level status and before the date of the initiation of separation action, had completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty
* could not or would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life
* had demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service
* had failed to respond to counseling

	c.  Entry level status is defined as the first 180 days of continuous active service or the first 180 days of continuous active service after a service break of more than 92 days of active service.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  She was formally counseled concerning her academic deficiencies and lack of motivation for continued service prior to the initiation of separation proceedings.  Therefore, a failure to improve clearly shows her lack of putting forth a reasonable effort to adapt to a military environment.

2.  At the time her commander notified her that he was initiating action to eliminate her from the service, she had completed less than 180 days of continuous active service.  Therefore, she was still in an entry level status at the time separation action was initiated.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 under which she was processed specifically required that her service be uncharacterized.

3.  Her entry level status and the reason for her release from active duty were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The record contains no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis to change the characterization of her service to honorable.

5.  The applicant is advised an uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service.  It merely means that the Soldier had not been in the Army long enough for her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.

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)                                         AR20140005553



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005553



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1