MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            27 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000034920

	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. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 reason for his separation be changed from entry level status (ELS) performance and conduct to hardship, and that his characterization of service be upgraded to a fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the separation he received was inequitable and in no way reflects the kind of soldier he was.  He contends that he was at a disadvantage from the beginning of his service because he was already 28 years old.  He claims that his wife was undergoing a high risk pregnancy at the time he was scheduled to attend basic training and that he had his initial report date to training in June 1998 changed to September 1998.  He goes on to indicate that while he was attending basic training he was removed from training due to a severe knee injury and was told that he would have to start all over again.  Throughout this period the applicant claims that his wife was having extreme difficulty with her pregnancy and demanded his presence at home.  She attempted to get him sent home by contacting the Red Cross and told him that if did not come home she would divorce him.  He indicates that he made numerous attempts to resolve the situation through his chain of command, the chaplain, and the community health mental services, all of which failed.  He concludes by indicating that his wife made attempts to have him returned home through the Red Cross and even had her doctor call them to make this request.  Based on these factors, the applicant believes the reason for his discharge should be changed to hardship and that the characterization of his service should be upgraded to fully honorable.  The applicant has provided the enclosed expanded statement in support of his application.  

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

He had previously served as a member of the Regular Army (RA) from 
29 December 1988 to 2 March 1989 and that he was separated from this period of RA service on 3 March 1989, with an uncharacterized description of service, under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct.  At the time of this discharge from the RA he had completed 2 months and 4 days of active military service.  

On 1 September 1998, the applicant reported to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri to attend basic training.  He was attending his initial active duty for training (IADT) in conjunction with his enlistment in the Illinois Army National Guard (ARNG).  

The available records do not contain a separation packet documenting the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events surrounding his separation from this period of service. 

The evidence of record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), which was signed by the applicant.  This document verifies that he was separated on 16 December 1998, with an uncharacterized description of service.  The authority for his separation was chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 and the reason for his separation was ELS performance and conduct.  In addition, the DD Form 214 indicates that at the time of his separation the applicant had completed just 2 months and 16 days of his IADT.

The DD Form 214 also verifies that, between 4 November 1998 and 3 December 1998, the applicant had accrued 30 days of time lost due to AWOL.  In addition, the record shows that at the time of his separation he had not completed sufficient training to be awarded a military occupational specialty.  There is no indication in the record that the applicant contested the separation action or attempted to apply for a hardship discharge at the time.  

On 3 December 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his uncharacterized discharge from the RA in 1989.  The ADRB determined that this discharge was proper and equitable in all respects and denied his request for an upgrade.  There is no indication that the ADRB ever reviewed the applicant’s uncharacterized separation from IADT in 1998.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an ELS.  This provision of the regulation applies to individuals who demonstrate that they are not qualified for retention because they can not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lack the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for military service, or that they demonstrate 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.  Although the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his 1998 discharge from the Army, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, signed by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  

2.  The applicant was separated with an uncharacterized discharge while in an entry level status (ELS).  This type of separation provides a means to expeditiously separate soldiers, with an uncharacterized description of service, who are found to lack the necessary motivation, adaptability, self-discipline, ability, or attitude to become productive while they are still in an ELS).  An ELS discharge in not an adverse separation action and simply means that the soldier was in an initial probationary period of service and had served for less than 
l80 days at the time the unit commander initiated the separation action.

3.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions, the Board found no proof to show that he ever attempted to formally request a hardship discharge.  In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that he fully exhausted his options to obtain assistance or relief with his personal problems, through the many legitimate avenues available to him, prior to his committing the misconduct which led to his separation.  Therefore, the Board concluded that a change in the reason for his discharge is not warranted.  

4.  A fully honorable discharge may be granted in conjunction with an ELS only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty.  The Board found no such unusual circumstances were present in the applicant’s record of service and thus, determined that there was no basis for upgrading his discharge to fully honorable.

5.  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.

6.  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 __  ___tap __  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000034920	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/27	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1998/12/16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C11	
DISCHARGE REASON	ELS Performance and Conduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.