PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:          

	BOARD DATE:              11 December 2001                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AR2001061832

	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:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy		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 correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) as 31L [wire systems installer] and correction of her records to show all of the certificates she submitted with her application.  In addition, she requests that her general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.

3.  The applicant states that she only has her 63B [light wheeled vehicle mechanic] MOS certificates shown on her DD Form 214 and that she has several certificates which should be shown on her DD Form 214.  She feels that she was “done wrong” by the Army.  She contends that she should not have been chaptered at that time due to a sexual assault case.  The applicant further contends that she never saw legal counsel and she was never read the chapter.  She was advised to drop her case by her first sergeant.  She told her first sergeant that she wanted to do the charges and was chaptered two days later.  In conclusion, she contends that if proper procedures had taken place, none of this would have happened.  In support of her application, she submits a copy of her DD Form 214 and eight certificates.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 February 1999 for a period of six years.  She attended basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  She entered advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  

5.  On 4 October 1999, the applicant submitted a memorandum to the U.S. Army Signal School and Fort Gordon to waive her enlistment commitment for MOS 31L for MOS 63B.  She was then reassigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina to complete AIT in MOS 63B.  

6.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry “63B10 LT WVEH MECH -- 01 YRS – 01 MOS//NOTHING” in item 11 (Primary Specialty).  Her DA Form 
2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows she completed 10 weeks of training as a light wheeled vehicle mechanic in MOS 63B.  There is no evidence available to the Board which shows the applicant completed training in MOS 31L or that she ever served a period of one year or more in MOS 31L.  

7.  The applicant provided a copy of her diploma from the Wheel Vehicle Mechanic School, dated 29 February 2000.  This diploma shows she successfully completed the Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanics Course; however, this course is already shown in item 14 (Military Education) of the applicant’s DD Form 214.  Therefore, this portion of the applicant’s request will not be discussed further in these proceedings.

8.  The applicant provided copies of the following certificates:  (1) Certificate of Appreciation; (2) Mad Dog Certificate (for outstanding support and participation in performing funeral detail); (3) Certificate of Completion of Basic Combat Training; (4) Certificate of Signal Corps (Regimental) Affiliation; and (5) Certificate of Affiliation with the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps.  These certificates; however, are not authorized documents to be shown on the DD Form 214.

9.  The applicant provided a copy of her diploma from the U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon which shows she successfully completed the TATS Cable Systems Installer-Maintainer Course during the 17 May 1999 to 7 July 1999.

10.  On various occasions between June 2000 and January 2001, the applicant received four negative counseling statements for indication of alcohol dependency, intention of self injury without intent to avoid service, suspension of pass privileges, violation of a direct lawful order, destruction of property, and assault consummated by battery.

11.  On 18 April 2001, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for using provoking gestures, for unlawfully striking a private first class (two specifications), and for being disorderly.

12.  On 20 April 2001, the applicant was notified of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(b), for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  She waived legal counsel and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  

13.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge, waived rehabilitation requirements, and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 26 May 2001 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(b), for misconduct – pattern of misconduct with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  At the time of discharge, she had completed 2 years, 3 months and 11 days of active military service.

14.  On 17 October 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge to honorable.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The regulation provides, in pertinent part, that the primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) and all additional military occupational specialties (MOS) served in for a period of one year or more, during the soldier’s continuous active military, service will be entered in item 11 (Primary Specialty) of the DD Form 214.

16.  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
of 40 hours or more 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.

17.  Army Regulation 635-5 provides that item 13 of the DD Form 214 will reflect decorations, medals, badges, citations and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized for all periods of service.  Certificates of Achievement, Letters of Appreciation, and similar documents are not recorded on the DD Form 214.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200 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 a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  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 appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant successfully completed AIT and was awarded the PMOS 63B.  

2.  Evidence of record shows she served in MOS 63B for 1 year and 1 month; however, there is no evidence and the applicant has provided no evidence which shows she was awarded the PMOS 31L or that she served in that PMOS for a period of one year or more.  Therefore, there is no basis for amending her DD Form 214 to show her PMOS as 31L.

3.  The Board reviewed the Certificate of Appreciation, the Mad Dog Certificate (for outstanding support and participation in performing funeral detail), the Certificate of Completion of Basic Combat Training, the Certificate of Signal Corps (Regimental) Affiliation, and the Certificate of Affiliation with the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps submitted by the applicant.  However, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-5, these certificates are not authorized to be recorded on her DD Form 214.

4.  Evidence submitted by the applicant shows she successfully completed the TATS Cable Systems Installer-Maintainer Course during the period 17 May 1999 to 7 July 1999; therefore, she is entitled to correction of her DD Form 214 to show this course.

5.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that she was “done wrong” by the Army.  However, 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.

6.  The Board also noted the applicant’s contention that she never saw legal counsel.  However, evidence of record shows the applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, but she declined to do so.

7.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  

8.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for her separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge.

9.  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 this case be corrected by amending item 14 (Military Education) of the individual concerned DD Form 214 to show the entry “TATS Cable Systems Installer-Maintainer Course, 5 Weeks, 1999”.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

KAK___  REB_____  TEO_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Karol A. Kennedy______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061832	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011211	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010526	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 14-12b . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT IN PART	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0500	
2.	100.0700	
3.	144.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.