MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 September 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070726

	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. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 Item 24 (Character of Service) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed to show that his service was honorable instead of uncharacterized.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he was accused of sending his recruiter a death threat.  In support of his request, he submits a copy of a  DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) that indicates he was counseled in March 2001 for being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer (NCO), and for sending his recruiter a letter that contained a dime and a noose made of dental floss.  The applicant's chain of command questioned him about the implications of his actions and he refused to explain. 

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

That on 26 January 2001, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B, Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic.  On 9 February 2001, he was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia, for basic training.  He did not complete basic training, never commenced his MOS training, and he was never awarded the MOS.

Between 1-23 March 2001, the applicant received general counseling statements for unsatisfactory performance and conduct; for continuously going on sick call to get out of training; for missing the Army Physical Fitness Test; for lack of personal desire and effort to meet training requirements; for lack of motivation; for failure to adapt to military life; for being disrespectful towards a NCO; and for failure to follow instructions.  He was counseled concerning the consequences of being separated under the provisions of chapter 11 and he was informed that he would receive an entry level separation and his service would be uncharacterized.

On 26 March 2001, the applicant's unit commander notified him of initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, due to entry-level performance and conduct with an uncharacterized discharge.  He was also advised of his rights and the impact of the discharge action.  The applicant acknowledged notification and waived legal representation and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On an unknown date, he was voluntarily placed in an excess leave status pending discharge.

On 28 March 2001, the approval authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be separated with an uncharacterized discharge.

On 16 April 2001, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, due to entry-level performance and conduct.  He had completed 2 months, and 21 days of creditable active military service.

On 31 October 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade the characterization of his service to honorable.

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.

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.  His records show that he was counseled for lack of desire and effort to meet minimum training requirements; for lack of motivation; failure to adapt to military life; and for unsatisfactory performance and conduct.  He was also informed of the consequences of being separated under the provisions of chapter 11 with an uncharacterized discharge.  

3.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's status as an entry level soldier.

4.  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

__jhl___  __mmd___  __reb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070726	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020919	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010416	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 11	
DISCHARGE REASON	A29.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.2900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.		

The applicant's records do not contain all the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process.  However, the Army Discharge Review Boards Case Report and Directive shows that