MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            10 June 1999      
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999004802

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms.	Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr.	Elzey J. Arledge		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr.	David E. Weightman		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of her request for reinstatement to her previous active duty status and with pay, promotion and retirement.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, applicant deferred to counsel.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, the applicant was erroneously discharged for entry level performance and conduct, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, since she was beyond 180 days of service, and therefor inappropriately discharged under that authority.  Her total service was not taken into account and totaled 202 days.  The Army is legally bound to abide by the provisions of their own regulations, and the Army can not disregard regulations simply because it is convenient to do so.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 11 June 1986 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant was enlisted in the Reserve on 7 October 1982 in pay grade E-3 for 6 years.  She was born on 2 November 1947 and was age 34 at the time.  She enlisted for training in military occupational specialty 91B, medical specialist, and for a bonus of $2,000.00 to be paid incrementally starting from completion of training.

From her enlistment to 9 December 1982, the applicant received Reserve drill training in an Inactive Duty Training (IDT) status.

She reported for Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT) on 9 December 1992, for a scheduled period of 18 weeks.  She was counseled numerous times concerning her inability to complete physical training and her attitude.  Recycling was not successful.

On 1 April 1983 she was notified by her commander that he proposed separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation, Chapter 11, Trainee Discharge Program (TDP).  He stated the reasons for his proposed action was her lack of necessary ability to complete basic training as evidenced by her physical condition, and her constant poor attitude.  She was appraised of all of her rights in the matter.

The applicant requested to consult with consulting counsel, to make statements in her own behalf, to obtain copies of all associated documents, and to have a separation physical.

On 6 April 1983 she received counsel from an Army Defense Counsel concerning her rights and choices under the TDP.
On 6 April 1983 her commander then recommended the applicant be discharged.  He further stated, among other things, that she completed 6 weeks of basic training, and that she did not successfully complete basic training.

On 8 April 1983 the applicant requested reconsideration.  She stated, among other things, that she is in excellent physical condition; that she is slightly overweight because of not being able to exercise because of an injury; that now that she can walk normally, her attitude, personal outlook and general well being has tremendously improved; that her new start was too short because of being laid up in bed for 1 month; that she had learned from her mistakes; and she asked for one more chance to prove herself and be a soldier in the Army.  Her request was not approved.

The applicant was found medically qualified for separation by competent medical authority.

On 27 April 1983 the applicant’s battalion commander directed her separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 
11-3a.

The applicant was discharged on 28 April 1983, under the provisions of “PARA 11-3A/B AR 635-200”, for “ENTRY LEVEL STATUS PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT.”  Her service was “UNCHARACTERIZED.”  She was discharged in pay grade E-3, with 4 months and 20 days of net active service this period, and 
2 months and 2 days of total prior inactive service.  She was assigned reentry code RE-3.  She was not awarded a military occupational specialty.

On 11 June 1986 her initial appeal, dated 28 April 1985, was denied by the Correction Board.

On 3 March 1997 she was informed  that her request for reconsideration, dated 16 September 1995, was not considered by the Correction Board due to the lack of submission of new evidence.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation, in effect at the time, provided in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in entry level status.  The reason for separation under this authority was Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct (Trainee Discharge Program).  This policy applied to individuals who had less than 180 days of active service (Active Duty or IADT) at the initiation of this action, who demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  It specifies that individuals separated under this authority would receive a characterization of service as uncharacterized.

Entry level status is the first 180 days of continuous active military service.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant is not entitled to reinstatement to her previous active duty status and with pay, promotion and retirement.  She and her counsel have not shown any error or injustice in this case or for the relief requested.

2.  She was properly counseled and she was properly discharged under pertinent regulations.  She received all of her attendant rights.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

3.  The contentions of the applicant and counsel are noted; however, they are not supported by her application or records.  The evidence clearly shows the applicant was on active duty/IADT from 9 December 1982, for 113 days 
(3 months and 29 days) when action was taken on 1 April 1983, under the TDP.  She was within the required 180 days for consideration and discharge under this program.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

sac  _         slp _____  eja______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC86-01714B/AR1998004802	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 June 10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	134	
2.	110	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.