PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:           

	BOARD DATE:                 30 August 2001             
	DOCKET NUMBER:        AR2001055869

	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	
	Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		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 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show an unspecified service medal in item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) and to show the school she completed in item 14 (Military Education).  In addition, she requests that her general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she wants these items corrected on her DD Form 214.  She also states that she was told by company personnel that her DD Form 214 would be upgraded to honorable in six months.  In support of her application, she provides a letter from the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, a diploma from the Defense Mapping School, and a copy of her DD Form 214.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 May 2000 for a period of three years.  She was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for basic training.  She was further assigned to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to complete advanced individual training (AIT).  Records show she did not successfully complete AIT and was not awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS).  The applicant was discharged from active duty on 2 March 2001.  

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 does not show any awards in item 13.  Review of the Military Awards Regulation shows that soldiers are eligible for award of the Army Service Ribbon upon completion of their initial MOS producing course.

6.  The applicant provided a copy of her diploma from the Defense Mapping School, dated 15 December 2000.  This document shows she attended the Basic Lithographer Course during the period 2 August to 15 December 2000.  However, item 14 on her discharge document does not show completion of this course.

7.  On 12 September 2000, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to obey lawful general orders by wrongfully consuming alcohol while underage; by wrongfully bringing alcohol and cigarettes into the barracks; and by wrongfully using tobacco products while assigned to her unit.  On 22 January 2001, she received a negative counseling statement for testing positive for the use of marijuana.  

8.  The applicant was notified of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(b) and (c), for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  She consulted with legal counsel, was advised 

of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The separation authority’s approval of the recommendation for discharge is not in the applicant’s records.  However, her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged on 2 March 2001, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c), for misconduct – commission of a serious offense, and was issued a general under honorable conditions discharge.  She had 9 months and 15 days of creditable service.

9.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of her discharge from general to honorable.  On 26 July 2001, she requested withdrawal of that application.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that the Army Service Ribbon was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981.  The regulation states, in pertinent part, that effective 1 August 1981, all members of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve in an active Reserve status are eligible for the award upon successful completion of initial entry training.  The award may be awarded retroactively to those personnel who completed the required training before 1 August 1981 provided they had an Active Army status on or after 1 August 1981.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 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.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

13.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board 

determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Records show the applicant did not successfully complete AIT and as a result, was not awarded a MOS.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant the applicant award of the Army Service Ribbon or to correct item 13 of her DD Form 214 to show this service ribbon.

2.  Evidence submitted by the applicant shows she successfully completed the Basic Lithographer Course during the period 2 August to 15 December 2000; therefore, she is entitled to correction of item 14 of her DD Form 214 to show this course.

3.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that she was advised that her discharge would be upgraded to honorable in six months.  However, there is no policy or regulation within the Army which allows automatic upgrading of discharges.  

4.  Records show the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

5.  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 type of discharge directed and the reasons for her separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  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 the individual concerned be corrected by amending item 14 (Military Education) of her DD Form 214 to show the entry “Basic Lithographer Course, 18 Weeks, December 2000.”

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

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO____  LDS_____  CJP____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055869	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010830	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010302	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 14-12c	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct – Commission of a serious offense	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT IN PART	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Schneider	
ISSUES         1.	107.0000	
2.	100.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.