MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           01 August 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050664

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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:  Change in the characterization of her service from “uncharacterized” to “honorable” and removal of DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form) dated 19 November through 6 December 1991 from her record.

APPLICANT STATES:  That before separation of a soldier, commanders will insure that the soldier receives adequate counseling and rehabilitation.  There was never an attempt to rehabilitate her because there was never a problem.  She further states that several of the DA Forms 4856 were handwritten and not typed.  All the things said by various drill sergeants and the commander of the company were simply harassment and discrimination on their part.  She was truly in a hostile environment.  She also states that when she received her denial from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) she was dumbfounded because they relied on handwritten dates on the DA Forms 4856.  She submits copies of her DA Forms 4856, the Case Report and Directive from the ADRB and Army Regulation 635-200, section chapter 11 in support of her application.

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

She enlisted in the Reserve as a private, pay grade E-1 on 21 December 1988.  She was advanced to private, pay grade E-2 on 13 August 1989.

She enlisted in the Regular Army as an E-2 on 12 November 1991.

On 19 November 1991, she was counseled for displaying a negative attitude during the period 15 November through 19 November 1991.  She acknowledged receipt of the counseling statement and stated she did not agree with the entire statement.

On 21 November 1991, she was counseled for lack of motivation, fair appearance and attentiveness, poor conduct and mastery of training skills.  Remarks read “Soldier has problems following instructions and is not receptive to counseling and corrective training.”  She was referred to the first sergeant for additional counseling and advised that her display of a pattern of misconduct can be cause for elimination from the service.  She acknowledged receipt and did not concur with the information.

On 22 November 1991, she received further counseling for her inability to follow instructions, a negative attitude and lack of motivation on 19 November 1991 and for being late for formation, poor military appearance and lack of motivation on 21 November 1991.  She was informed that her pattern of misconduct could be cause for elimination from the U. S. Army.

On 27 November 1991, she was punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 15 for failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty.  Her punishment included restriction, extra duty and forfeiture of pay for 7 days (suspended).

On 6 December 1991, the first sergeant advised the applicant of a referral to the company commander for separation proceedings.  She was advised that any attempt to train her had failed.  Her conduct and behavioral characteristics are not in keeping with the standards and traditions of the U. S. Army.

On 10 December 1991, her command recommended she be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.

On 11 December 1991, she was counseled for failing to follow instructions.  She was referred to the first sergeant for further action.

On 13 December 1991, she was counseled for absence from a company formation.  On 14 December 1991, she acknowledged receipt and stated that a thorough statement would be provided later.

On 16 December 1991, the remaining punishment of forfeiture of 7 days pay was vacated due to her performance during the company inspection.

On 18 December 1991, she was notified of the proposed separation action under the provisions (UP) of entry-level status performance and conduct, Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.

She acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation.  After consulting with legal counsel she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

On 16 January 1992, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation.

She was discharged on 23 January 1992, UP of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, Entry Level Status.  Her character of service was “uncharacterized.”  She had a total of 2 months and 12 days net active service for this period.  

On 11 August 2000, the ADRB denied her request for change in the character of her discharge.

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 the 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.

Paragraph 3-9 of the regulation specifies that soldiers who are within the first 180 days of their enlistment when separation processing is started will normally receive an uncharacterized entry-level separation.

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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to a change of the characterization of her service.  She has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.  

2.  There is no error or injustice in her record.  She was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations, with due process.  The uncharacterized service was and still is appropriate, and there is no basis for change.  She clearly is not authorized a characterization of other than uncharacterized based on her brief period of service and based on her discharge for entry level status performance and conduct.  She was advised of this during her counseling and separation proceedings.

3.  Her contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not sufficiently supported by her records or her application.  She has not shown that the contested DA Forms 4856 contain any serious administrative deficiencies or were not prepared in compliance with applicable regulations and policy.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing them from her records.

4.  There is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant was the victim of harassment and discrimination.

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

_ewl____  _mhm____  __jh____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050664	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010801	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.