BOARD DATE:	  19 February 2015

	     DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140010094 


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, correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 2 December 1985 to show her character of service as "honorable" instead of "entry level status (ELS)."

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  She served in excess of 180 days of active duty service and she deserves to be given an honorable discharge.  She completed all of her training and duty assignments during that time.  Since she served more than 181 days of active duty, she should not have been given an ELS discharge.  

	b.  At the time of her discharge, she was beginning a very difficult pregnancy, she was having unexplained mental health issues, she had gained a lot of weight, she was extremely ill, and she experienced emotional distress during a very stressful period of German language training at the Defense Language Institute (DLI) in Monterey, California.  

	c.  When she was discharged, she was handed her medical file and told to make it on her own.  Her separation code was "LGA," which hints at pregnancy; however, it was not stated on her DD Form 214.  Given her medically related discharge and over 181 days of active duty service, she should have been given an honorable discharge for the convenience of the Army.

	d.  She lost her pregnancy within three weeks of returning home.  She was young and confused; had she known her issues resulted from her pregnancy she may have made different choices about continuing her service instead of thinking she was having a nervous breakdown.

3.  The applicant provides:

* her DD Form 214 for the period ending 2 December 1985 (2 copies)
* Orders D-08-234453, issued by the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN), St. Louis, Missouri on 11 August 1992
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22-3 (Request for Waiver), dated    17 June 2003
* NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), dated         10 June 2004

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 17 May 1985.  Upon her completion of basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina she was reassigned to DLI, Monterey, California for advanced individual training (AIT) as a German language linguist.  Her records show she did not complete AIT.

3.  On 1 November 1985, she underwent a mental status evaluation, wherein she was diagnosed as having adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  The examining psychologist noted:

* her behavior was determined to have been at times "bizarre"
* she was fully alert and fully oriented
* her mood was depressed and her thought process was clear; however, her thought process at times focused on suicide
* her memory was good
4.  The examining psychologist stated:

* the applicant did not express motivation for continued service or exhibit sustained social and emotional stability
* the applicant's command could reasonably expect her future performance to resemble her past performance
* the applicant demonstrated developmental/personality characteristics that contributed to her difficult adjustment to the demands of the military
* those characteristics did not warrant disposition through medical channels
* she was recommended for administrative separation from active duty for inability to adjust to the demands of the military

5.  On 8 November 1985, 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 (ELS), by reason of her inability to adapt.  He was further advised that if the request for separation was approved she would receive an entry level status character of service.

6.  On 8 November 1985, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the entry level separation notification action in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.  She requested representation by consulting counsel; however, she elected not to submit written statements in her own behalf.

7.  On 12 November 1985, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against her in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, by reason of unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions in an ELS.  The immediate commander noted that the applicant had a potentially self-destructive personality and was not able to adapt to the military lifestyle.

8.  On 21 November 1985, the separation authority approved her discharge from the Army in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.  

9.  On 2 December 1985, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve.  The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms in – 

* Item 12c (Record of Service – Net Active Service This Period), she was credited with completing 6 months and 16 days of active military service
* Item 23 (Type of Separation), she was released from active duty
* Item 24 (Character of Service), her service was characterized as "Entry Level Status"
* Item 25 (Separation Authority), she was released in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-5
* Item 26 (Separation Code), her separation code was "LGA"
* Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), she was released from active duty by reason of ELS performance and conduct

10.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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

	a.  Chapter 3 of the regulation in effect at the time established the different types of characterization of service.  A separation was described as an entry-level separation if processing was initiated while a member was in an entry-level status, except when characterization under other than honorable condition was authorized under the reason for separation and was warranted by the circumstances of the case, or when The Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable was clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.  

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a of the regulation in effect at the time provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	c.  Chapter 11 of the regulation in effect at the time established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry level status.  Separation under this chapter applied to Soldiers who were in an entry level status and who, before the date of the initiation of separation action (emphasis added), had completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty and had demonstrated that they could not or would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that the SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty.  The SPD code "LGA," in effect at the time, was the correct code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of chapter 11-5 (Entry Level Status) of Army Regulation 635-200.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends her DD Form 214 for the period ending 2 December 1985 should be corrected to show her character of service was honorable instead of ELS.  She contends she served longer than 180 days and should be afforded an honorable discharge.

2.  The evidence of record shows that while in AIT, she appears to have shown an inability to adjust to the military environment.  Therefore, on 8 November 1985, her immediate commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, her separation accurately reflects her overall record of service.

3.  The regulation in effect at the time provided that Soldiers were considered to be in an entry level status if separation processing was initiated within the first 180 days of their service.  The evidence shows her separation processing was initiated prior to her 180th day of service; therefore, the entry level status designation was appropriate in her case.

4.  When separated while in an entry level status, a Soldier's service is usually not characterized unless the circumstances of the separation warrant an under other-than-honorable conditions discharge.  An honorable characterization may be given only if the Soldier's service clearly warrants that characterization by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military duty, as determined by the Secretary of the Army.  A general characterization of service is not authorized.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's request for an honorable discharge.

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)                                         AR20100000887



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140010094



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1