BOARD DATE:	  19 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014007 


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 the characterization of his service be changed from uncharacterized to general under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he issued a verbal threat due to fear for his own safety from the other private who was harassing him at the time.  No thought was given to his safety from higher personnel. 

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application.

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 5 March 1984, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He did not complete basic combat training.
3.  On 27 March 1984, he was formally counseled on his failure to attain the "thunderbolt" (T-bolt) standard of 50 percent of basic standards after being in 
T-bolt for 3 weeks.  He was advised if he did not work hard he would not meet the basic standard.  He stated that he understood.

4.  On 5 April 1984, he was evaluated at the Community Mental Health Activity (CMHA), Fort Knox, KY by a psychiatrist.  The examiner stated:

	a.  The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and adhere to the right.  He also had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board hearings.

	b.  The applicant was experiencing social/emotional maladjustment to the military.  He was rebellious towards peers and authority and may be a danger to himself and others if allowed to participate in range activities.  He had problems learning and was somewhat withdrawn.

	c.  Due to the above findings, prognosis for an adequate adjustment to the military with counseling was poor.

	d.  The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command, to include separation from military service. The examiner recommended strong consideration be given to separation from military service.

5.  On 5 April 1984, the applicant was placed on profile with a numerical designator "T-3" under "S" (psychiatric).  

	a.  Behavioral and attitudinal problems rendered the applicant incapable of successfully coping with the emotional stress of military training.  It was recommended that the command pursue appropriate administrative action necessary to expedite elimination from military service.  

	b.  Assignment limitations were noted as "suspend all training" and no handling of weapons.

6.  On 7 April 1984, the applicant was formally counseled by Sergeant First Class (SFC) Y concerning the following deficiencies during the period from 30 March through 7 April 1984:

* difficulty during physical training on three occasions
* inability to do pushups
* difficulty with drills and ceremonies 
* displaying a negative attitude
* improperly making his bunk
* improperly shined boots
* communicating a threat on two occasions
* disobeying a lawful order (he was given an order not to draw a weapon; but he did it anyway, locked it in his wall locker, and went to his CMHA appointment
* failing to follow instructions

7.  The applicant did not concur with the counseling and stated he knew if he were given a second chance he would do better.  If he was discharged he would have no home of record to go back to anyway.

8.  SFC Y stated the applicant did not have the proper attitude required to complete basic training.  Even after 3 weeks of thunderbolt he still lacked motivation or initiative to improve his physical condition.  SFC Y concurred with the CMHA that the applicant should be discharged as soon as possible.

9.  The applicant's commander stated he was very immature and had ample opportunities to adjust to the military; however, he squandered away each chance.

10.  On 10 April 1984, his commander notified him he was initiating action to separate him from the Army prior to the expiration of his current term of service under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations).  His separation would be an entry level separation with uncharacterized service.  The specific reasons for his proposed action were:

* the applicant did not possess any characteristic desire in a Soldier
* he was immature, possessed a negative attitude, had threatened individuals, and he was in an atrocious physical condition
* the counselors at the CMHA recommended his immediate discharge

11.  His commander advised him he had the right to:

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

12.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander's notification.  He desired to consult with consulting counsel and he desired to make a statement in his own behalf.   In his statement he indicated:

	a.  He was being discharged because of his poor physical condition, negative attitude, and the Article 15 for communicating a threat.  The doctor at the CMHA found him to be unstable.

	b.  He reduced his weight from 250 pounds to 218 pounds at the time he was sent to basic training.  After failing the pushup test at the reception station he was sent to Project Thunderbolt.  He thought he was in shape but found out different when he got there.  The pain and sweat didn't matter so much anymore after he noticed he had lost another 15 pounds after 21 days.

	c.  After being sent back to basic he tried to keep up.  He knew his pushups were terrible by Army standards.  Whenever they ran, he never gave up; even when his coughing got bad, he didn't stop.

	d.  He had caught a bad cold.  He experienced sweats and chills indoors and pain in his left side which was started by the coughing.

	e.  His cold was one of the reasons he was in trouble.  Others were starting to get sick from his cold because of his cough and they kept hassling him about it.  He finally got tired of them hassling him and told them nobody had better mess with him after he got his M-16 Rifle.  He states he received an Article 15 for communicating a threat.

	f.  His mother told him if he failed basic she would move out and leave him nothing to go back to.  If he failed there was no future and no hope for him.  He knew he could and would do better if he was just given one more chance.

13.  The applicant's commander recommended that he be discharged from the Army under the provisions chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200.  The commander stated the applicant had completed 1 week of basic training and had one Article 15.  He stood out among his contemporaries because of his immaturity and the "chip" he had on his shoulder.  He was rebellious and would not accept authority.  He was in very poor physical condition even after being in Thunderbolt which was an indicator of his desire and trainability.  

14.  On 16 April 1994, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant appeared to be calm and rational most of the time.  However, two events of threatening other Soldiers with bodily harm when he got his M-16 Rifle indicated there may be a deeper mental problem.  The CMHA felt his hostility toward his peers may cause him to carry out his threats of bodily harm.  His statement indicated desperation.  There was a probability that he would not act rationally when placed under continuous stresses of peer pressure and rigorous training.

15.  On 19 April 1984, he was discharged.  He completed 1 month and 15 days of active service that was uncharacterized.

16.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  

	a.  Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES):  P-physical capacity or stamina, 
U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and 
S-psychiatric.  

		(1)  Numerical designator "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness, and is consequently, medically fit for any military assignment.  

		(2)  Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  The individual should receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.  

		(3)  Numerical designator "4" indicates that an individual has one or more medical conditions or physical defects of such severity that performance of military duty must be drastically limited.  The numerical designator "4" does not necessarily mean that the individual is unfit because of physical disability as defined in Army Regulation 635-40.

	b.  To make a profile serial more informative, two modifiers are used: "P" (permanent) and "T" (temporary).  The "T" modifier indicates that the condition necessitating a numerical designator "3" or "4" is considered temporary, the correction or treatment of the condition is medically advisable, and correction will usually result in a higher physical capacity.  In no case will individuals in military status carry a "T" modifier for more than 12 months without positive action being taken either to correct the defect or to effect other appropriate disposition.

17.  Chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200, 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 before the date of the initiation of separation action and 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.

	d.  The regulation required an uncharacterized description of service for separation under this chapter.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends that he communicated a threat due to fear for his own safety.  The facts and circumstances surrounding this incident are not available for review.  Although an Article 15 is mentioned by the applicant and his commander in his recommendation, there is no record of it in his Military Personnel Records Jacket.

2.  Based on comments from his chain of command and the CMHA, it is clear the applicant was neither physically or mentally capable of coping with the emotional stress of military life or the rigors of basic training.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The record contains no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for changing the characterization of his service.

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 his 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)                                         AR20140014007



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014007



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1