MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          6 November 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003085406

	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. Carolyn Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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 narrative reason for discharge be changed from "marginal/non-productive" to hardship.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was discharged from the Army due to family circumstances.  She states that her baby’s father had been physically abusing her and she was afraid for her daughter’s safety.  She adds that she was 1 day shy of qualifying for veterans' benefits.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 May 1981 for a period of 3 years, the Army Special Unit Enlistment Option - 4th Infantry Division, and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31M (Multichannel Communications Equipment Operator).  The applicant was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for basic combat training (BCT).  

On 22 June 1981, while still in BCT, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to obey an order by not securing her weapon.  Her punishment consisted of 2 days’ restriction and extra duty and forfeiture of $116.00 pay per month for 1 month.

On 4 July 1981, the applicant reported to Fort Gordon, Georgia for advanced individual training.  The applicant has several counseling statements for numerous acts of misconduct, to include failing to report for duty, missing bed checks, and not performing fire guard duty.

On 3 September 1981, the applicant was counseled by her company commander and recommended for discharge under the trainee discharge program (TDP).  The commander stated that because of the applicant's attitudes about the military, she would not become the kind of Soldier the Army needed.  He also stated that the applicant was aware of the provisions of the TDP.

On 2 September 1981, the company commander initiated separation action under the provision of paragraph 5-33, chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200.  He stated his reasons for recommending discharge were the applicant would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life; that she did not meet the minimum standards for successful completion of training; and that she had demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  

On 2 September 1981, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed separation action.  She indicated that she understood that if she did not have sufficient prior service, that due to non-completion of requisite Active Duty time, VA and other benefits normally associated with completion of honorable active service would be affected.  Also, she elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf and declined a separation medical examination.

On 2 September 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provision of paragraph 5-33f(2), chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 and directed the transfer point to furnish her an honorable discharge; to indicate the reason and authority for discharge as paragraph 5-33f(2), chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200; and to show the separation program designator as JET.  Accordingly, on 4 September 1981, the applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge.  She was credited with 4 months of active military service and 1 month and 21 days of inactive service.

Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the entry “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) – Marginal or nonproductive.”

Item 26 (Separation Code) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry “JET.”  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JET” is “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) Marginal or nonproductive” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33f(2). 

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 21 May 2002; however, it was beyond that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army. Paragraph 5-33 of this regulation, in effect at the time, governed the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP).  This program provided for the separation of service members who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive soldiers or have failed to respond to formal counseling.  The regulation essentially requires that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual training, on the job, or service school training prior to award of a military occupational specialty and must not have completed more than 179 days of active duty on their current enlistment by the date of separation.  The regulation provided that soldiers may be separated when they have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention due to failure to adapt 

socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of regulation will be honorable.

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.  Although the applicant states it was family problems that resulted in her discharge, the evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged because she would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, she did not meet the minimum standards for successful completion of training, and she had demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  There is no indication she was experiencing family problems or any type of personal hardship.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 

4.  The narrative reason shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is the appropriate narrative reason associated with the trainee discharge program.  

5.  Veterans Administration (VA) benefits are authorized based upon the type of discharge given; an honorable discharge generally entitles a veteran to all benefits.  However, the VA may set time-in-service criteria for certain benefits.  If the VA is denying the applicant certain benefits because she did not complete a set amount of time in the service, she should contact the VA for a possible waiver.

6.  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

__sk____  __rjw___  __mmb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085406	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810904	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chap 5.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A24.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.