MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           21 May 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064675

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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:  That the narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show that she was separated because she did not have an appropriate family care plan.  This is also a request, in effect, that her Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code be corrected to show a code of RE-1 vice the code of RE-3 that is currently shown.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was separated because she did not have an adequate family care plan.  She was not separated as a result of entry-level performance and conduct.  She submits in support of her request a copy of her DD Form 214, DD Form 4856, Developmental Counseling Forms, dated 4 and 
13 June 2001, a memorandum, dated 13 June 2001 and a chapter coversheet/ checklist.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records are limited to those documents that she submitted.  The available records show that on 12 February 2001, she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years, training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B, Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic.  

Evidence available indicates that on 4 June 2001, while the applicant was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for advanced individual training, she was counseled for failure to adapt to military life due to personal distractions, unsatisfactory performance and misconduct.  The applicant had informed her unit on several occasions that she was unable to find a daycare provider for her child. The applicant's child had been released from three daycare facilities after biting other children.  The child was also undergoing treatment apparently for the problem and the applicant was required to be present with the child during doctor's visits.  Previously, the applicant's mother had been the alternate day-care provider, however, she was no longer able to care for the child due to financial reasons.  Evidence available also indicates that the applicant had been counseled on an earlier date for displaying an unprofessional attitude due to frustration.  

On 13 June 2001, the unit commander counseled the applicant and notified her of his intent to initiate separation action under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 with an uncharacterized discharge.  She was informed of the various types of discharges and the consequences surrounding each one.  On the same date her chain of command requested that she be dropped from the Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic Course.

The applicant's records do not contain all the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process.  However, her record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 that was prepared at the time of separation and authenticated by the applicant.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 

28 June 2001, she was discharged under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, due to entry-level performance and conduct.  She had completed 4 months and 17 days of active military service.  She was assigned an RE Code of RE-3.

Pertinent Army Regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlisting and processing into the RA and the eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes and RA RE codes. 

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service.  However, the disqualification is waivable.  Local recruiting personnel have the responsibility for determining whether an individual meets the current enlistment criteria and that recruiting personnel are required to process a request for waiver.  There is no evidence that she has ever requested such a waiver.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provides for the separation of personnel during the initial 180 days of service while still in an entry-level status.  

The policy applies to soldiers who have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention because they cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline.  These soldiers are given an uncharacterized discharge and, when discharged under the provisions of chapter 11, are discharged by reason of entry-level status performance and conduct.  Only in certain meritorious cases approved by the Secretary of the Army are they entitled to an honorable discharge.

On 12 April 2002, the applicant was provided an application for the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) and informed that she had not exhausted all administrative remedies available to her.  She was also advised that she had 30 days to complete the application and return it.  She failed to respond.

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 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.
2.  The available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, due to entry-level performance and conduct.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing; however, her records show that she was counseled for failure to adapt to military life due to personal distractions, unsatisfactory performance and conduct.  She was informed that separation actions were being initiated under the provisions of chapter 11.  She was informed that she would receive an uncharacterized discharge and the ramifications of receiving such a discharge.  The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process.  The applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary

3.  The Board determined that the evidence available clearly demonstrates the applicant experienced personal problems that interfered with her ability to serve while she was in an entry-level status.  Therefore, separation under the provisions of chapter 11, for performance and conduct was appropriate.  There is no evidence available to indicate that she ever requested a hardship discharge.

4.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification, which established the basis for the applicant’s RE code.  The assigned RE code was and still is appropriate.

5.  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

___jlp____  ___bje__  ___tl____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064675	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020521	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010628	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A01.43	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	112.000	
2.	144.0143	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.