MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           4 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020923

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 her uncharacterized entry level separation be changed to reflect honorable service.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she did the very best that she could during basic training.  She also states that she is now 40 percent disabled and felt that she fulfilled her obligation to the best of her ability.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 19 February 1997 as an administrative specialist.

On 13 May 1997, the applicant was counseled regarding her medical condition after returning from convalescent leave, her desire to leave the military, and her lack of motivation to complete basic training.  She was also informed that she would be recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.

On 14 May the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 chapter 11, for entry level separation.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s lack of motivation to successfully complete the minimum requirements for basic training.  After being advised of her rights, the applicant waived the opportunity to consulting with counsel and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  

On 22 May 1997, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that she be separated from the service and issued an uncharacterized entry level separation.  The applicant was discharged on 29 May 1997 under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 11, with an uncharacterized entry level discharge.  She had completed 3 months and 11 days of creditable service.

The applicant filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for a service connected disability for her right and left knee condition, right and left shin condition and right foot injury.  She was granted a 40 percent disability rating on 9 February 1998 for her knees and shin condition and 0 percent for her right foot injury.  She reapplied to the DVA for an increase in compensation for her right foot injury and was denied on 12 May 1998.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 5 November 1998 requesting that her discharge be characterized as under honorable conditions.  The ADRB denied her request on 5 February 1999. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, of the 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 also applies to soldiers who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribes for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline.  The regulation states that a soldier is in an entry level status if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.  The soldier’s service is uncharacterized when separated 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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The rating action by the DVA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The DVA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA
does not necessarily constitute an error or injustice on the part of the Department of the Army.

4.  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.

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

CWB____  EB_____  RJW_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020923	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990304	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 11	
DISCHARGE REASON	Entry Level Separation	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.