IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE:  30 April 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014327 


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, the separation authority and narrative reason for separation be changed to show he received a hardship discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was initially approved for a hardship discharge based on his mother's medical condition and because he was having memory and attention problems due to a blow to the head.  Also, he was informed that his fiancé had left him for someone else.  The reason for separation was changed when he was discharged.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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 2 March 1982.  He failed to complete his initial training.

3.  The applicant was counseled on several occasions between 4-9 September 1982 for the following offenses:

* being absent from the unit
* violation of company policy - radio
* personal problems

4.  On 17 September 1982, the applicant was counseled by his company commander in reference to the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP).  His commander noted that the applicant had previously been dropped from the 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist) course and had failed the 75D (Personnel Records Specialist) course.  The applicant initially felt that he could complete the course; however, he had been worried about his mother who became ill about a month prior and would have an operation in October.  He recommended the applicant be separated under the TDP.

5.  On 10 June 1983, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  His commander stated that the applicant consistently demonstrated and expressed a lack of motivation and desire for further training.  Continued training and retention on active duty would be counterproductive.

6.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel he waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant's separation and placement in the Individual Ready Reserve.

7.  On 26 October 1982, the applicant was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He completed 7 months and 25 days of net active service this period.

8.  His record is void of a request for or an approval of a hardship discharge.

9.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  
	a.  Chapter 13 of this regulation provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment:

* the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier
* retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale
* the service member would be a disruptive influence in the future
* the basis for separation would continue or reoccur
* the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership was unlikely

	b.  Paragraph 5-33 of this regulation governed the TDP.  This program provided for the separation of service members who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive Soldiers or have failed to respond to formal counseling.  The regulation essentially requires that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual training, on the job, or service school training prior to award of a military occupational specialty and must not have completed more than 179 days of active duty on their current enlistment by the date of separation.  The regulation provided that Soldiers may be separated when they have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention due to failure to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  His record is void of documentation supporting his contention he should have received a hardship discharge; however, the record shows that on 17 September 1982, his commander initially recommended that the applicant be separated under the TDP on 17 September 1982.  On that date the applicant had 199 days time in service and he was not eligible for separation under the TDP.

2.  The evidence of record shows he failed to meet the minimum standards for successful completion of training for two different career fields due to his lack of motivation and desire to complete training.  The applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed separation and waived all his rights to appeal the action.  As such his separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, he received an honorable characterization of service.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's 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.



      ____________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)                                         AR20140014327



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014327



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1