MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074128

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 changed to an honorable discharge (HD).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that her uncharacterized separation was accomplished in an effort to cover up the rape that was perpetuated against her by a drill sergeant.  However, her recent service connected disability for a post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as a result of a sexual trauma, validates the horrible injustice that was done to her.  She claims that she was also taken advantage of by being told that she should never acknowledge that she had been in the Army.  

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

On 17 September 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Specialist).  She was assigned to Fort McClellan, Alabama, to attend basic training.  

On 12 February 1987, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant that action to discharge her from the Army was being initiated.  The unit commander indicated that the specific reasons for the proposed separation action was the applicant’s recent suicide attempt, and the events that had transpired since her arrival in the unit.  On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, stated her understanding that her service would be described as Entry Level Status (uncharacterized), and that a discharge certificate would not be issued.  

On 13 February 1987, the separation authority approved the Entry Level Status (ELS) performance and conduct separation action on the applicant, under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that the applicant receive an ELS uncharacterized discharge. 

The applicant’s medical records was loaned to the DVA and were not available to the Board for review.  In addition, no DVA records pertaining to the applicant were provided by the applicant for review.  

There is no evidence of record showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to her discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an ELS.  This provision applied to personnel who could not meet the standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline.  An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to soldiers separating under this chapter.  A general discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions, and an HD is rarely ever granted.  An 
HD may be given only 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 was separated under ELS provisions in an effort to cover up a rape that had been perpetuated against her by a drill sergeant, and that this unjust treatment has been validated by a DVA determination that she suffers from a PTSD, due to sexual trauma.  However, the Board finds no evidence of record to support these claims, and the applicant has failed to provide any independent evidence supporting her contentions.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  The applicant received an uncharacterized discharge, as a result of being separated while in an ELS.  At the time of her discharge, she had completed just 4 months and 27 days of active duty service.  A soldier is in ELS, or probationary period, for the first 180 days of continuous active duty.  An HD may be granted only in cases that are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty.  The Board finds no such circumstances present in the applicant’s record.  Therefore, it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.  

4.  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.

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

__JNS __  __INW __  __JAM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074128	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1987/02/13	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C11	
DISCHARGE REASON	ELS, Performance and Conduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.