MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            8 September 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019739

	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.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen L. Wolff		Member	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		Member	

	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:  In effect, that the narrative reason for separation be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that block 28 of the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) erroneously states misconduct.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 3 October 1994, the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and was assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia to attend advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty 94B (Food Service Specialist).  

The applicant’s record shows that he completed less than 180 days of active duty and never advanced beyond the rank of private/E-1.  There are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition contained in the applicant’s record of service.  However, the record does contain evidence of an AWOL related disciplinary infraction.  On 30 January 1995, while still in AIT, the applicant went AWOL from his unit and remained away until 
3 March 1995 (30 days).  

On 14 March 1995, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised that separation action against him was being contemplated by his unit commander, under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200.  He was also advised by counsel of the basis for the discharge action, its possible impact on him, his right to counseling, and his right to an opportunity to overcome his deficiencies, as outlined in Chapter 11, AR 635-200.  However, against the advise of his counsel, the applicant elected to complete a conditional waiver of these rights, contingent on his receiving an uncharacterized description of service and discharge.  In his conditional waiver statement the applicant indicated that he had concluded that he could not adapt to the military environment and that this inability to adapt was not the fault of the lack of rehabilitation efforts by the Army.  

On 17 March 1995, the applicant’s unit commander recommended the applicant’s separation, under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200, by reason of entry level performance and conduct, and recommended the applicant receive an uncharacterized discharge.  On 29 March 1995, the intermediate level commander recommended approval of the separation action and an uncharacterized description of service.

On 31 March 1995, the separation authority approved the terms of the applicant’s conditional waiver and directed that the applicant receive an uncharacterized discharge.  Accordingly, on 21 April 1995, the applicant was discharged after completing just 5 months and 18 days of credible active military service.
On 6 August 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a change to the narrative reason for his discharge and found the discharge process was proper and equitable in all respects.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status.  This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had 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.  The separation policy applies to soldiers who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline.  The regulation requires uncharacterized service for separation under this chapter.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that the narrative reason contained on his DD Form 214 inappropriately listed misconduct.  However, after carefully examining the evidence of record the Board concluded that the applicant was appropriately discharged by reason of “entry level performance and conduct”, under the terms of his own conditional waiver.  In addition, the Board found no error in the DD Form 214 issued the applicant at discharge.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

3.  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

___klw __  __fkm ___  __owt___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019739	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/09/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1995/04/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C11	
DISCHARGE REASON	Entry Level Performance and Conduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.