MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 October 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085192

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 records be corrected to show he had more than one month of service and to show the reason for his discharge.  He also requests that he receive a portion of his enlistment bonus and that a National Defense Service Medal be forwarded to him.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that as he was sworn in twice his records should reflect that he had a longer period of service.  He feels he should receive some of the benefits for his service. He also states he never received any of his $1500 enlistment bonus nor the actual medal for his authorized National Defense Service Medal.

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

He enlisted under the Delayed Entry Program on 7 February 1975.  He entered active duty on 4 April 1975 and started basic training at Fort Jackson, Tennessee.

His enlistment documents show that in order receive the Army Cash Bonus Enlistment Option he must satisfactorily complete advanced individual training and be awarded a combat arms military occupation specialty (MOS).

An FJ Form 8 (Evaluation for Discharge for Enlistees Before 180 Active Duty Days) shows that during his first week he was reported to be in a constant mental daze.  It noted that he was very slow to comprehend and could not react to commands.

The FJ Form 8, block 14 (First Counseling), dated 28 April 1975, shows he was counseled on 23 and 25 April 1975 for substandard performance.  It states that he was well below the average on all test scores and could not perform Drill and Ceremonies and had very little recall of Customs and Courtesies or First Aid.  It states that he took two full days on the range to zero his weapon.   

A 6 May 1975 counseling form states that he was counseled on 28 April 1975 and 1 May 1975.  It states that he cannot follow simple instructions, had “dismal” results on his basic weapons score (zero out of 70 rounds) and could not listen to the tower and react.  It states that he is extremely slow and cannot improve despite intensive remedial training.

On 6 May 1975 his company commander issued him ATZJ-AGPA FL 140 (Discharge for Enlistees Before 180 Active Duty Days) notifying him that he was recommending discharge under the provisions of DA Message DTG 011510Z August 1973, for discharge of trainees with less than 180 days of active duty.  It was stated that he was a slow learner and had not shown improvement since his counseling.  

He acknowledged that because of his short period of service he was not entitled to VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) or other benefits normally associated with an honorable discharge.  He waived his right to counsel, to a separation medical examination and to make a statement on his own behalf under the provisions of the Trainee Discharge Program. 

The discharge authority approved the recommendation and the applicant was discharged on 13 May 1975 with an honorable discharge.

The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty), dated 13 May 1975, shows he had 1 month and 1 day of active duty with 1 month and 27 days of inactive duty.  It shows that he was authorized the National Defense Service Medal. 

His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not indicate that he was issued the National Defense Service Medal.

DA Message DTG 011510Z August 1973 was issued by the Secretary of the Army as an interim authority for separation of personnel with less than 180 days of active duty.  This message was replaced by Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, and became known as the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP).  Both the message and the regulation provide for the separation of personnel in an entry-level status for unsatisfactory performance or conduct as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort, or a failure to adapt to the military environment.  These provisions apply only to individuals whose separation processing is started within 180 days of entry into active duty.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  He is not entitled to any part of his enlistment bonus because he did not complete AIT or receive the required MOS.

2.  There is insufficient evidence to show that he was not paid all monies to which he was entitled.  He is not entitled to any part of the enlistment bonus because he never earned the required MOS.

3.  He was discharged for failure to complete his initial period of training.  The reason for discharge is properly noted on his DD Form 214.  

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.

NOTE:  ARBA St. Louis will be requested to complete the necessary administrative actions to have a National Defense Service Medal forwarded to him.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JHL___  _MKP___  __AAO __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085192	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031023	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.