MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            7 November 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039833

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		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, change the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to one that is without a negative connotation. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the reasons for which he was counseled were misleading, vague and without any supporting documentation or explanation.   The reason that is shown on his DD Form 214 is unfair.  He was discharged due to his father’s failing health.  He was told that his discharge would not negatively affect him. However, the reason that is shown on his DD Form 214 prevents him from entering into law enforcement.  He submits a letter, dated 18 November 1999, which was written by his father’s physician.  The physician’s letter requests that the applicant be compassionately discharged due to his father’s terminal illness.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 28 October 1999 for training in military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  

On 8 and 9 November 1999, during the first week of basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, the applicant received his initial counseling.  He was briefed by his drill sergeant on the chain of command and company and battalion policies, training requirements, his duties and responsibilities, the importance of accountability and security, the importance of teamwork, sick call policies and procedures, the need for him to maintain a positive attitude, and of the importance of striving to “be the best that he could be.”

On 15 November 1999, during the second week of training, the applicant’s drill sergeant counseled him after he verbally stated that he did not want to be in the Army.  He was counseled due to his immaturity and his lack of motivation.

On 20 November, his drill sergeant counseled him concerning his negative attitude and it’s affect on the rest of the platoon.   He was also counseled again concerning his lack of motivation.  His chain of command believed that he demonstrated a lack of maturity and an inability to adapt to military life. 

On 25 November 1999, his drill sergeant counseled him because he was not meeting the standards that were required of a soldier.  He had missed training due to going on numerous sick call appointments or for having a profile, for his attitude, for a lack of motivation and because of his expressed desire to leave the military.  

The applicant signed each counseling statement that he received acknowledging that he understood the reason for each counseling session.  

He also failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) twice, however, the dates on which he failed the tests are not contained in the available records.

On 25 November 1999, the applicant’s drill sergeant recommended that he be considered for an entry level separation (ELS).  The reason for this recommendation was the letter referenced in paragraph two and the applicant’s lack of motivation to train.

On 25 November 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635 200, by reason of entry level status-performance and conduct.  The commander cited the applicant’s failure to adapt to military life as the basis for the separation action.
He was advised of his rights and of the impact of the discharge action. 

The applicant authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving an ELS discharge.  He stated that he did not desire to consult with legal counsel, and that he did not desire to make a statement in his own behalf.
	
On 25 November 1999, the applicant was voluntarily placed on excess leave, without pay and allowances pending his discharge under the provisions of chapter 11.

On an unknown date, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts, and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-00, for ELS with an uncharacterized discharge.

On 14 December 1999, the applicant was separated, in abstentia, under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, for entry level 
status-performance and conduct, with an uncharacterized discharge.  He had completed 1 month and 17 days of active military service. 

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.

On 30 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to change the reason for his discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it concluded:

1.  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 this requirement.

2.  The Board considered the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable.

3.  The applicant was appropriately counseled concerning his immaturity, lack of motivation and negative attitude.  He was provided many opportunities by his chain of command to improve his performance prior to being discharged and he failed to respond. 

4.  The Board empathizes with the applicant and the fact that he was dealing with personal problems at the time of his discharge.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to seek assistance with his personal problem without his demonstrated poor pattern of behavior and his negative attitude.  Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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

__gdp___  __mhm__  __pm____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

				

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039833	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001107	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A2900	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.2900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.