MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          11 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002068129

	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:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 his uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he was diagnosed with a hernia during basic training.  He was issued a waiver from taking the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), while he was undergoing physical therapy during advanced individual training (AIT).  However, before he could receive surgery to repair the hernia, he was given an uncharacterized discharge.  He claims that he should have either been medically discharged or given a GD.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).

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

On 13 March 1985, he entered the Army for 2 years, for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76V (Material Storage and Handling Specialist).

On 19 March 1985, the applicant began basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  Between 22 March and 16 May 1985, he was formally counseled on at least 14 separate occasions for a myriad of performance related issues that included:  not meeting the standard on his first diagnostic APFT; not zeroing his weapon; not achieving standards on the range; failing to pass the APFT on his third attempt; and substandard performance.

On 23 May 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s inability to meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of motivation and self-discipline.

On 23 May 1985, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action and stated his understanding that his service would be uncharacterized based on his being in an entry level status.  He completed his election of rights by waiving his right to military counsel and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf

On 30 May 1985, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct, and directed that his service be uncharacterized.  Accordingly, on 31 May 1985, the applicant was separated after completing a total of just 2 months and 18 days of active military service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 entry level status 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.

Chapter 11 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for the expeditious separation of members in an entry level status, 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 entry level status.  A GD 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 contentions that he should have received either a medical discharge or a GD because he was discharged prior to hernia repair surgery being done.  However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s unit commander initiated separation action against him while he was still in an entry level status based on performance and conduct related problems, as evidenced by the extensive counseling record.  Further, there is no evidence of record and the applicant has failed to provide evidence that would indicate he should have been processed for separation through medical channels.

3.  By regulation, an uncharacterized separation is mandated for members separated while still in an entry level status.  A GD is not authorized, 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.  

4.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant had completed less than 180 days of active military service at the time the separation action was initiated against him and the Board finds his separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations.   

5.  By regulation, a GD is not authorized for members separating in an entry level status and the Board finds no unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty that would warrant the applicant receiving an honorable discharge.  Therefore, the Board concludes that his uncharacterized separation was appropriate and accurately reflects his limited period of active duty and overall record of service.

6.  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 the this requirement.

7.  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

__MKP__  __EJA__  __RTD___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068129	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850513	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR535-200.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.2900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.