MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045746

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 his uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that his reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-3 to RE-1.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he deserves to have his discharge and RE code upgraded because he has proven himself.  While he did wash out of basic training in 1983, two years later he went back and completed basic training in the United States Marine Corps (USMC).  He claims to have since completed the basic noncommissioned officer course (BNCOC) and that he is now in the process of applying for warrant officer school.  He indicates that because he has since proven himself and his uncharacterized discharge and the resultant 
RE code hurts his chances to be appointed a warrant officer it would be fair and appropriate to upgrade his discharge.

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

On 20 September 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army for four years.  On 
29 September 1983 he began One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Benning, Georgia for training in military occupational specialty 11B (Infantry).  

The record shows that, between 29 September and 2 November 1983, the applicant was counseled on 14 separate occasions for a myriad of performance and conduct related issues.  The subject for these formal counseling sessions included the following:  self-discipline; security violations; several failures to meet basic rifle marksmanship training standards; desire to leave the military; motivation; attitude; and Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) processing.   

On 2 November 1983, the applicant was counseled by his unit commander in regard to his desire to leave the military under the provisions of the TDP.  The unit commander stated that the applicant wished to be discharged in order to pursue a religious career.  He further indicated that the applicant’s motivation and attitude at that point would not enable him to be a productive soldier.  The applicant concurred with the comments of the unit commander by completing a written statement in which he indicated that he agreed with everything the unit commander documented in the formal counseling statement.

The battalion executive officer (XO) interviewed the applicant  in connection with the TDP separation processing.  The XO indicated that the applicant desired to be discharged in order to become a catholic priest and this seemed to be a sincere request.  The XO also recommended the applicant’s transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) of the United States Army Reserve (USAR) rather than a discharge and the applicant concurred in writing with the comments and recommendations made by the XO.

The unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of entry level performance and conduct.  In addition, the applicant was advised of the rights he had in connection with this separation processing and he acknowledged this notification action. 

The applicant consulted military legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, he completed his election of rights.  He indicated that he did not desire to make a statement or to submit a rebuttal in his own behalf, that he did not wish to undergo a separation medical examination, and that he did not wish to consult either military or civilian legal counsel.

The unit commander submitted his recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the Army due to his lack of motivation and his defective attitude towards military service.  He further commented that the applicant could not and would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life and lacked those qualities necessary to become a productive soldier.  He confirmed that the applicant had been counseled on numerous occasions concerning his lack of self-discipline and initiative.  Finally, the unit commander recommended that rehabilitative recycle requirements be waived.

On 7 November 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s release from active duty (REFRAD), under the provisions of paragraph 11-3a, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct and directed that the applicant be transferred to the IRR to complete his military service obligation.

Accordingly, on 10 November 1983, after completing just 1 month and 21 days of active military service, the applicant was REFRAD and transferred to the IRR. His character of service was documented as uncharacterized and he was assigned an RE code of RE-3.  

The record shows that subsequent to his TDP separation the applicant enlisted in the USMC Reserve on 28 August 1987 and served until 20 March 1988.  He then enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) in the State of Massachusetts on 
21 March 1988 and has continued to serve in that status until this date. 

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the Department of Defense (DD) Form 214.  The SPD code of LGA was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the regulatory guidance for soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry level performance and conduct.  
Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes RE Code 3 as the proper RE code to assign soldiers separated by reason of entry level performance and conduct. 

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.

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 noted the applicant’s contention that his uncharacterized separation should be changed to honorable and that his RE code should be changed to RE-1.  However, based on the evidentiary record, the Board finds neither a propriety or equity basis on which to grant the requested relief. 

2.  The applicant desired separation from the Army, under the provisions of the TDP, as evidenced by his concurrence with the recommendation for his separation.  By regulation, members separated who had served for less than
180 days at the time a commander initiates separation action, and are not being separated for serious misconduct, will be given an uncharacterized separation.  This is not an adverse separation action and denotes only that the individual had less than 180 days on active duty. 

3.  The evidence or record shows that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  Further, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and that the uncharacterized service designation and corresponding 
RE code were appropriate given the reason for his separation and his entry level status at the time. 

4.  Further, the Board finds no evidence to suggest that an upgrade to the separation under review and the corresponding RE code would enhance the applicant’s prospects for being appointed a warrant officer.  These factors do not disqualify him from consideration and his warrant officer appointment should be made based on the overall merits of his application and his service in the ARNG. 

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 this 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

___mm__  __js_____  ___jtm __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045746	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/01/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/11/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C11	
DISCHARGE REASON	TDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360	144.0000	
2.  4	100.0300	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.