PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           6 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001055498

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 that her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD From 214, be corrected to show her rank and grade as Private, E-2 (PV2), her date of separation as 7 February 2001, her net active service as  1 year, 2 months, and 18 days of service, and that she was a high school graduate or equivalent.

3.  The applicant states that she was an E-2, not an E-1, that she had a high school general equivalency diploma (GED) and college, and that she had days leave accrued.  The initials (in item 30) are forged and items 27 and 28 were added after the DD Form 214 was signed.  She provides a copy of her DD Form 214; her separation orders; her Enlisted Record Brief dated 15 August 2000; one page of her Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1; and a document from the Office of Public Instruction dated 7 October 1996 as supporting evidence.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 2000 in pay grade E-2.  Her Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States, DD Form 1966/1, item 12 shows her education level as “11E” (which the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command verified as meaning high school GED).

5.  In December 2000, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to her appointed place of duty.  Her punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, 45 days extra duty, and an oral reprimand.  After an appeal, the punishment of 45 days extra duty was amended to suspend 15 days of extra duty for 6 months.

6.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 shows that she was advanced to PV2 on         16 January 2001.  The provided Enlisted Record Brief also shows her rank as PV2; however, that Brief is dated 18 August 2000.  The Personnel Action, DA Form 4187, for this advancement is not available and this advancement is not verified by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Indianapolis Center.

7.  On an unknown date, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  His recommendation cited her Article 15 and the fact she was counseled on several occasions for failing to perform her assigned duties, failing go to her appointed place of duty, and other infractions.  He recommended she receive a general discharge under honorable conditions.

8.  On 21 December 2000, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action.  She was advised by consulting counsel and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  She stated that she recognized that she may not have been suited for active service but believed she could continue to serve in the reserve.  Her recruiter lied to her about what the duties of a veterinary assistant would be.  She was never given proper supervision.
9.  On 29 January 2001, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s release from active duty with an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  

10.  On 6 February 2001, the applicant was released from active duty, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with an honorable discharge.  Her separation orders show her separation date as 6 February 2001.  She had completed 1 year and 17 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  Her DD Form 214, item 15b shows that she was not a high school graduate or equivalent; item      16 that she was not paid any days accrued leave (DFAS-IN verified that she was paid for 11 ½ days accrued leave); item 26, that her separation program designator (SPD) code was LHJ (involuntarily released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance); and item 27 that her reentry (RE) code was “NA.”

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

12.  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Designator Code (SPD)/RE Cross Reference Table, states that when the SPD code is LHJ then an RE code of 3 will be given.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-2 supports the flagged records work center of the Personnel Service Center and Personnel Service Company.  In pertinent part, it states that a field-initiated elimination requires a non-transferable flag to be removed when the soldier is reassigned to a transition point.  Nonjudicial punishment requires a non-transferable flag, the flag to be removed upon completion of punishment, to include any term of suspension.  A flag prohibits favorable personnel actions including promotions.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 contains three administrative errors.  Her enlistment contract shows she held a high school GED upon enlistment.  DFAS-IN has verified that she was paid for 11 ½ days of accrued leave.  Her RE code should have been “3,” not “NA.”

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was separated for unsatisfactory performance on 6 February 2001 for a net active service of 1 year and 17 days of creditable active service.  She provides no evidence to show she was not separated on 6 February 2001.  

3.  The applicant was reduced to Private, E-1 in December 2000.  Her nonjudicial punishment also included 45 days extra duty, 30 days of which were suspended for 6 months.  She would have been flagged in December 2000 upon receiving the Article 15 and upon initiation of the elimination action.  Any promotion action made in January 2001 would not have been valid.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That the applicant’s DD Form 214 be amended by correcting item 15b to read “yes,” item 16 to read “11 ½,” and item 27 to read “3.”

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__lls___  __mhm___  __jtm___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Luther L. Santiful
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055498	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010906	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.