MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059477

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she served honorably while on active duty and was not discharged from the Army for misconduct.  She further states that an upgrade of discharge will allow her to receive veterans benefits.  In support of her application, she submits a copy of her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214).

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

On 8 August 1989, she entered the Army for 4 years for the U.S. Station of Choice Option for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B
(Military Police).

On 14 August 1989, the applicant began One-Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort McClellan, Alabama.  Between 14 August and 25 October 1989, she was formally counseled on at least 12 separate occasions for a myriad of performance and conduct related issues.  This included being counseled in regard to her disqualification from the Personal Reliability Program (PRP) based on her emotional instability, inability to adapt, lack of self-discipline.

On 10 October 1989 and 13 October 1989, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation at the community mental health service (CMHS).  The evaluator found she was poorly motivated to be a soldier and that she was becoming increasingly anxious and depressed with suicidal ideation.  It was finally recommended, that at a minimum, the applicant be reclassified into another MOS that did not require the use of firearms.  However, it was the evaluator’s recommendation, based on the applicant’s poor overall performance and potential, that she be administratively separated from the Army due to her inability to adapt and character and behavior traits not compatible with military service.  

On 23 October 1989, the Chief, Social Work Section, CMHS provided an addendum to the previous mental status evaluations and recommended that the applicant be administratively separated from the Army without delay due to her deteriorating mental health.

On 15 November 1989, the applicant was notified by her commander that Entry Level Status (ELS) separation action was being initiated against her under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s inability to adapt to military life coupled with her suicidal ideations as the basis for taking the action.  

On 19 November 1989, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for her contemplated separation, its effects, and of the rights available to her.  The applicant, in consultation with counsel, completed her election of rights and chose not to submit a statement in her own behalf. 

On 27 November 1989, the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be given an uncharacterized ELS.  Accordingly, on 30 November 1989, the applicant was separated after completing a total of just 3 months and 23 days of active military service.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, paragraph 3-9, identifies service characterizations and outlines the applicable circumstances that authorize each type of characterization. It states, in pertinent part, that the purpose of the ELS is to provide soldiers a probationary period during which they may be separated with an uncharacterized separation when they have served for less than 180 days at the time a commander initiates separation action, if they are not being separated for misconduct.  This is not an adverse separation action and denotes only that the individual had less than 180 days on active duty.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for the expeditious separation of members in an ELS who are found to lack the necessary motivation, adaptability, self-discipline, ability, or attitude to become productive soldiers.  It specifies that members who have not completed more than 180 days of continuous active duty at the time separation action is initiated against them by their commander are considered to be in an ELS.  A general discharge is not authorized for members separating under this provision and an honorable discharge may only be granted in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty.

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 notes the applicant’s contention that she served honorably while on active duty and an upgrade to her discharge would allow her to receive veterans benefits but finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The applicant’s separation process was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and her uncharacterized separation accurately reflects her limited period of active duty service and overall record of service. 

3.  The record clearly establishes that the applicant’s separation action was only initiated after she had consulted with legal counsel and had been advised of the effects of the contemplated separation action, which included the impact on her veterans benefits.  She was in an ELS at the time separation action was initiated against her and had completed less than 180 days of continuous active duty at the time she was separated.  

4.  By regulation, an uncharacterized separation is mandated for members separated while still in an ELS.  An honorable discharge may only be granted in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty.  The Board finds no such special circumstances in this case.  Therefore, it concludes an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge is not warranted. 

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

__FNE__  __MHM__  __BJE __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059477	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19891130	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 11 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Entry Level Status	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.