MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            16 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022290

	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	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 correspondence course scores he received as a staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG) and a  bachelor of science degree be added to his active duty DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) erred in not adding the requested actions to his DD Form 214 during a review they conducted in February 1998.  He also contends that the active duty DD Form 214 issued to him as an private first class/E-3 (PFC) is vastly inferior to the E-6 scores he received from Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and that this could harm the democratic process.  The applicant included with his application a VA letter, dated 16 November 1992, discussing the Public Law 
101-508, which allowed the VA to compare income reports to them with records of the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration; a single page resume; a VA claim letter, dated 11 January 1999, acknowledging receipt of a claim from the applicant; a summary of results project report issued in regard to the muzzle velocity of an unidentified weapon; a reply letter from a member of Congress, dated 28 January 1999, in reference to the applicant’s communication to him in regard to impeachment proceedings; a Correspondence Course Student Status Report, dated 14 July 1998, which records the applicant’s record of sub-course completion between 5 March 1996 and 5 September 1998.  The applicant also indicates he is being represented by counsel, his father, who is an attorney at law in Baltimore, Maryland.  However, counsel has submitted no brief of documents in support of this action.

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

On 10 January 1986, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years in the grade of private first class/E-3 based on his being a college graduate.  The applicant was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri to attend basic and advanced individual training.

On 28 January 1986, during the applicant’s first week of basic training, he was evaluated at the Community Health Services Activity based on a referral by his unit commander.  During this interview it was discovered that the applicant had been referred to a psychiatrist during reception station processing.  The impression of the interviewer was that the applicant had an unusual thought process and tended to have memory problems.  However, since he had already been evaluated during the reception process the unit commander should evaluate the applicant based on his industrial potential.

On 24 February 1986, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him, under the provisions of Chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of entry level performance and conduct.  

The unit commander indicated that he was taking action to separate the applicant based on his inability to gain and retain knowledge and his demonstrated performance, which indicated he did not possess the requisite ability required to successfully complete training.  The applicant completed a statement waiving his rights and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf to rebut the separation action.

On 28 February 1986, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s entry level separation and directed that he be issued an uncharacterized discharge.  Accordingly, on 28 February 1986, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 month and 21 days of active military service.

The Army Correspondence Course Program Student Status Report, dated 
14 July 1998, which was submitted by the applicant, refers to him as a staff sergeant (SSG).  However, there is no indication, in any of the available records, that the applicant ever served in any component of the Army subsequent to his 1986 discharge.  This form contains a record of the applicant’s enrollment and completion of sub-courses for the period 5 March 1996 through 5 September 1998.  

On 27 February 1998, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated for unsatisfactory performance or conduct, or both, while in an entry level status.  A soldier is in an entry level status, if before the date of initiation of separation, they have completed no more than 180 days of credible continuous active duty.  Service for soldiers separated under this chapter is uncharacterized.

Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents which are prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  Separation documents provide service members with a record of their military service for the period for which they are issued. 

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 concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.

2.  The Board had difficulty in determining the exact relief being requested by the applicant, the applicability of the documents he submitted in support of his request, or the specific error or injustice he felt justified his request.  However, after carefully examining the evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board found that the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at the time of his discharge from active duty was proper and equitable in all respects.  This form was a accurate representation of the applicant’s service for the period of service it covered.  Subsequent military service or accomplishments of the applicant and his education level are not appropriate additions to the DD Form 214.  Therefore, the Board concluded that the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant was not in error and relief is not warranted.

3.  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.

4.  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

__sk ____  __fkm___  __rvo ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022290	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1986/02/28	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C11	
DISCHARGE REASON	Entry Level Status	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.