IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019137 


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 makes no additional statements in support of his application.

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 31 August 1989, he enlisted in the California Army National Guard (CAARNG).  He entered active duty on 31 October 1989.  He completed basic combat training; however, he did not complete advanced individual training.

3.  On 12 February 1990, he was evaluated by a staff psychiatrist at Wilford Hall, U.S. Air Force Medical Center.  

	a.  The applicant did not have a psychiatric disease that would amount to disability warranting separation under Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).

	b.  He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features manifested by symptoms of dysphoria and anger, culminating in suicidal and homicidal ideation.

	c.  The adverse effect of this condition on an assignment or in duty performance was marked.

	d.  The examiner recommended he be immediately removed from training and administratively discharged from the service.

4.  On 27 February 1990, his commander notified him he was initiating action to 
separate him from the U.S. Army under the provisions of chapter 11, paragraph 11-3a of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations, Enlisted Personnel) due to his inability to adapt to military life.

5.  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

6.  On 27 February 1990, the applicant waived his rights and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  He understood he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for a period of 2 years after discharge.

7.  On 27 February 1990, his commander recommended he be separated from the U.S. Army prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of chapter 11, paragraph 11-3a.

	a.  The applicant had demonstrated his inability to adapt socially or emotionally to the military by displaying an antisocial personality, which was not conducive to the military way of life.

	b.  The applicant was sent to Wilford Hall where he was diagnosed as having an antisocial personality disorder, culminating in suicidal and homicidal ideations.

	c.  He had no potential for useful service under conditions of full mobilization.

8.  On 2 March 1990, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200.  He was to be released from active duty and returned to the control of the CAARNG for discharge from his contractual obligation with that state.  This was an entry level separation and a discharge certificate was not furnished.  

9.  On 14 March 1990, he was released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, paragraph 11-3a in entry level status.  He completed 4 months and 14 days of active service that was uncharacterized.

10.  On 14 March 1990, he was discharged from the CAARNG by reason of entry level status and conduct.  His service was uncharacterized.  On 8 August 1991, he was discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve with an entry level status discharge.

11.  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, or
* 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.  For ARNG Soldiers entry level status begins upon enlistment in the ARNG and terminates, for Soldiers ordered to initial active duty for training for one continuous period, 180 days after beginning training.

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  At the time his commander notified him he was initiating action to eliminate him from the service, he had completed 4 months and 11 days of continuous active service.  He was still in an entry level status at the time separation action was initiated.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 under which he was processed specifically required that his service be uncharacterized.

2.  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 tend to jeopardize his rights.  There is no basis on which to change the characterization of his service.

3.  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)                                         AR20140019137



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019137



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1