PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           24 August 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036421

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show graduation from basic and advanced individual training, to correct item 9 (Command to Which Transferred), to show her marksmanship qualification badge, and to show in item 15 (Member Contributed to Post Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program) that she “paid into the education program.”

3.  The applicant states “that if I didn’t graduate how could they have shipped me to a unit; then I received blank checks from the military unit out of state.  My DD 214 was mailed to me when I called & requested it.  When I left I signed a blank DD 214.”  The applicant also states:  “Because the military made a big mistake Ive lost my education, my time & all my benefits due me.”  In support of her application, she submitted a copy of her Honorable Discharge Certificate from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), a copy of her DD Form 214 with a separation date of 18 August 1983 annotated with the proposed corrections, copy of her 30 November 1988 discharge orders from the USAR, and a copy of her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record-Part II).

4.  Based on the comments annotated on a copy of her DD Form 214, she contends that she should have been assigned to an Army Reserve Unit at Parkersburg, West Virginia, that she qualified as a Sharpshooter with the M-16 Rifle and the Hand Grenade, that she successfully completed military training in MOS 75E (Personnel Action Specialist), that her mailing address on her DD Form 214 incorrectly shows “Waverly, Ohio 26184” and that the separation code, narrative reason for discharge and reenlistment code should be changed to some unspecified other reason and number.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the USAR for a period of 6 years.  Her enlistment options included assignment to the 444th Personnel Service Company with incentive entitlement, education bonus, and training in military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative Specialist). 

6.  Orders in the applicant’s personnel records show she was ordered, effective 10 December 1982, to Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for approximately 18 weeks to complete basic and MOS training.

7.  Orders show that, effective 26 February 1983, the applicant was transferred from the Basic Combat Training Brigade to Company A, 11th Battalion, of the 4th Combat Support Training Brigade for training in MOS 71L.

8.  Orders show that, effective 19 May 1983, the applicant was transferred to Company E, 14th Battalion, 4th Combat Support Training Brigade for training in MOS 75E (Personnel Actions Specialist).

9.  The applicant’s personnel records contain discharge processing documents which show that she was separated under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance.  Included in the discharge papers are counseling statements which show that the applicant was a good soldier.  However, she had been recycled from training in MOS 71L for training in MOS 75E and was academically deficient in training in both MOS’s.  Her chain of command determined that she did not have the aptitude to be successful in either MOS.  On 4 August 1983, the company commander notified the applicant of pending separation for unsatisfactory performance.  She was provided the opportunity to consult with counsel, but waived her rights as authenticated in her own hand.  The Reserve Component Division concurred with discharge under Chapter 13 because the applicant had over 180 days of active duty.  The battalion commander noted that the applicant “has tried hard and done a commendable job in many areas”, but that she “lacks the aptitude for further training as evidenced by two separate MOS failures.”

10.  On 11 August 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed honorable separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to complete her military service obligation.

11.  On 18 August 1983, the applicant was issued a DD Form 214 which shows she was relieved from active duty training with an honorable characterization of service and transferred to the United States Army Control Group (Annual Training).  Item 26 (Separation Code) of her DD Form 214 shows the entry “LJH” and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) shows “UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION”.  Item 27 (Reenlistment Code) of her DD Form 214 shows the entry “RE 3”.

12.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows in item 11 (Primary Specialty Number, Title, and Years and Months in Specialty) the entry “NONE”.

13.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry “NONE”.  However, the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record-Part II) shows that she qualified as a Sharpshooter with the M-16 rifle on 8 February 1983.  There is no evidence in her records that she completed a hand grenade qualification course.  

14.  Item 14 (Military Education) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry “NONE”.

15.  Item 15 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows “X” in the block marked “NO” indicating the applicant did not contribute to the Post Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP).  The applicant’s enlistment documents show that she opted for an educational bonus and that she acknowledged that she would not be eligible to receive any payments until she received a secondary school diploma, until she completed active duty for training, and until she was qualified in her military occupational specialty.  There is no indication in the applicant’s records that she specifically opted for or contributed to VEAP. 

16.  Item 19 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows her mailing address as “ROUTE 1 WAVERLY OHIO 26184”.  Her Emergency Data Card shows her home of record as Rt 1 Box 110 Waverly WV [West Virginia] 26184.

17.  Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers) sets forth policy and procedures for assigning, attaching, removing and transferring soldiers of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  Section II of this regulation covers potential mobilization assets and provides that soldiers who have completed basic training or eight weeks of one station unit training are mobilization assets.  Further, the regulation provides that, in cases where these USAR soldiers do not complete their Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT), they may be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve, but precluded from unit assignment, in order to complete their statutory military service obligation.

18.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the policies and procedures for completion and distribution of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it states that item 14 (military education) will list formal in service training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed.  This information is to assist the soldier after separation in job placement and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills are not listed.

19.  Army Regulation 635-5 provides instructions for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states that item 13 will be completed to show decorations awarded or authorized during the period covered by the DD Form 214.

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), in pertinent part, sets forth requirements for award of basic marksmanship qualification badge.  The qualification badge is awarded to indicate the degree in which an individual has qualified in a prescribed record course, and an appropriate bar is furnished to denote each weapon with which the individual has qualified.  The qualification badges are in three classes:  Expert, Sharpshooter, and Marksman.

21.  The Veterans’ Education assistance Program (VEAP) was an educational incentive program offered to individuals who enlisted on active duty between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985.  The program was designed for the post-Vietnam era soldier as a means of establishing a fund to support their educational objectives following their military service.  For every dollar contributed by a soldier, the government matched with a two dollar contribution to the individual's VEAP account.  Participation in the VEAP was a voluntary option and was replaced, in July 1985, by the Montgomery GI Bill and the Army College Fund Program.

22.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it directs that the regulatory authority authorizing the separation will be entered in item number 25 of the DD Form 214.  Item number 28 will contain the narrative reason for separation, as shown in Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators) based on the regulatory authority.

23.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation program designator “LHJ” as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “Unsatisfactory Performance” and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator is “AR 635-200, Chapter 13”.

24. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Programs) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.

25.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows the applicant completed basic combat training.  However, this training is not shown on the DD Form 214 because the governing regulation dictates that training courses for combat skills are not listed on the discharge document.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s question:  “If I didn’t graduate how could they have shipped me to a unit”?  Evidence of record shows that the applicant did not complete MOS training in either MOS 71L or MOS 75E and was subsequently separated from initial active duty for training by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  As a result she was transferred to the IRR (Control Group Annual Training) instead of being assigned to a USAR unit which is in accordance with regulations governing assignment and transfer of USAR soldiers.  As a member of the IRR, the applicant was only a mobilization asset and was not assigned to a troop program unit or required to attend drill or annual training.  Therefore, 
item 9 (Command to Which Transferred) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct as currently constituted and will not be changed.

3.  Records show the applicant qualified as a Sharpshooter with the M-16 Rifle; therefore, she is entitled to award of the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar and correction of her DD Form 214 to show this badge.

4.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant elected an education bonus when she completed her enlistment documents.  There is no evidence that she elected, contributed to, or otherwise participated in VEAP.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, item 15 is correct as currently constituted.  Furthermore, regardless of which educational incentive she elected, she would not have received any education benefits or bonus because she did not fulfill the stated requirements in her enlistment contract for payment of the educational bonus.  Specifically she did not complete IADT and did not become qualified in her military occupational specialty.

5.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant’s address is incorrectly stated in item 19 (Mailing Address After Separation) of her DD Form 214.  The correct address should be “WAVERLY, WEST VIRGINIA” instead of “WAVERLY, OHIO”. Therefore, the applicant is entitle to correction of item 19 of her DD Form 214 to show “ROUTE 1 WAVERLY, WEST VIRGINIA 26184”.

6.  Discharge processing documents show the applicant was properly counseled for failure to achieve training standards initially in MOS 71L.  She was provided an opportunity to complete training in a different MOS, specifically MOS 75E.  The applicant did not meet the training standards for award of MOS 75E.  Based on failure to achieve training standards, the applicant was properly separated for unsatisfactory performance.  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.  Therefore, the applicant’s contention that the military “made a big mistake” in her case is not supported by the evidence of record.

7.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the proper separation code in item 26 and the proper narrative reason for discharge in item 28 based on the regulatory authority under which she was discharged.  Therefore, item 26 and item 28 are correct as currently constituted on her DD Form 214 and there is no basis for changing the current entries in these items.

8.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that she received an RE Code of “3” and she has not shown that this RE Code was unjust or otherwise incorrect.  The Board also notes that that this restriction on reenlistment can be waived; therefore, there is no basis for changing the applicant’s RE Code currently shown on her DD Form 214.

9.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Bade with Rifle Bar and that her mailing address after separation was “ROUTE 1 WAVERLY, WEST VIRGINIA 26184”.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__GDP__  __ALR___  __CLG__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____George D. Paxson___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036421	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000824	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 65-200, CHAP 13 	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERFORMANCE	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	MR SCHNEIDER	
ISSUES         1.	100.000	
2.	107.000	
3.	110.0200	
4.		
5.		
6.