MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 August 2003 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003087247

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Linda M. Barker		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 DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) be corrected to show that he served 90 days of active duty service.  

APPLICANT STATES:  By way of a telephone conversation on 27 June 2003, that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) denied him medical treatment because he did not serve 90 days; therefore, he is not a veteran. 

In his application, the applicant states that he enlisted for military occupational specialty (MOS) 98G (Electronic Warfare/Signal Intelligence Voice Interceptor (German)); however, the Army took away his "guaranteed" MOS and discharged him three days before he became entitled to his benefits.  He contends that he fulfilled his obligation and has been cheated out of his benefits.    

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

The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) under the delayed entry program on 11 July 1977.  His DA Form 3286-3 (Statements for Enlistment) shows that he needed to qualify for a Top Secret clearance.  His DD Form 1966/4 (Application for Enlistment) shows that he denied any pre-service drug use.  On 30 August 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty for a period of 4 years.  

While in basic training, on 26 September 1977, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39, the Trainee Discharge Program.  The unit commander cited that the applicant lacked motivation, constructive attitude and requisite self-discipline to become an effective soldier.  He stated that due to a necessary change in MOS (not granted the requisite security clearance for MOS 98G due to drug incidents while a minor), the applicant lost all desire to be a soldier and that his attitude was a threat to unit morale.

On 26 September 1977, the applicant acknowledged notification of his pending separation and proposed Honorable Discharge.  He indicated that if he did not have sufficient prior service, he understood that due to non-completion of requisite active duty time, DVA and other benefits normally associated with completion of honorable active duty service would be affected.   He elected not to make a statement on his behalf, he declined a separation medical examination and he declined the opportunity to consult with counsel.

On 30 September 1977, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.  

Accordingly, on 3 October 1977, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39, the Trainee Discharge Program, after completing 34 days of active duty.  
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he served 1 month and 4 days of total active duty service.

There is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records which shows that he served 90 days of active duty service.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 provides for separation for the convenience of the Government.  This chapter, in pertinent part, states that the Trainee Discharge Program provides that commanders may expeditiously discharge members who lack the necessary motivation, discipline, ability, or aptitude to become a productive soldier when they were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, Army National Guard, or USAR; or are in basic combat training or basic training or in MOS training in advanced individual training, a service school or on job training prior to the award of the MOS for which being trained and will have completed no more than 179 days active duty, or initial active duty for training, on current enlistment by the date of 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 evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that the Army took away his "guaranteed" MOS.  Evidence of record shows that following a necessary change in MOS, through no fault of the Army, the applicant lost all desire to be a soldier and that his attitude was a threat to unit morale.  The Board also notes he was aware he needed a Top Secret security clearance and that he failed to inform the Army of his pre-service drug use.    

3.  The Board considered the applicant's contention that he was illegally discharged three days before he was entitled to benefits.  However, the applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Evidence of record also shows that on 26 September 1977 

the applicant indicated that he understood that due to non-completion of requisite active duty time, DVA and other benefits normally associated with completion of honorable active duty service would be affected.   

4.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that he fulfilled his obligation.  Evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted for a period of 3 years; however, he only served 34 days.

5.  The Board noted the applicant's request to correct his DD Form 214 to show that he served 90 days of active duty service.  However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he completed 90 days of active duty service.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant completed 34 days of total active duty service which is properly reflected on his DD Form 214.  Therefore, 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

RVO____  JEA_____  LMB_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087247	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030814	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	129.0100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.