MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:           2 October 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087825

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 the narrative reason for her separation, her separation code and her Reentry (RE) Code be corrected to reflect that she was discharged for hardship reasons.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was unjustly discharged for entry level performance and conduct and given the separation and RE Codes for that separation instead of being discharged for hardship reasons.  She further states that her father suffered a massive stroke and that her children were in his care because she had recently divorced.  The American Red Cross requested that she be released because there was no one else to care for her family.  She also states that she was informed that she was being released under hardship reasons, but she was in a state of shock at the time and was released under an unjust code and reason.  She now desires to again enlist and serve her country in it's time of need.

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

She was born on 6 October 1972 and enlisted in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on 21 June 1996, for a period of 4 years, a cash enlistment bonus, training as a petroleum supply specialist and assignment to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  At the time of her enlistment she indicated that she was married and had three children. She also indicated that her parents, brother and children all resided in Oklahoma. 

She completed her basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia, to undergo her advanced individual training (AIT).  She completed her training at Fort Lee and was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to undergo further training as a petroleum vehicle operator.

On 21 November 1996, the applicant was counseled by her platoon sergeant regarding her sociological problems and her failure to adapt/conform to military requirements.  He informed the applicant that following her father's stroke, she had elected to seek a hardship discharge for hardship reasons and failed to provide the necessary legal documentation to determine the custody of her three children, which led to the failure of her request for a hardship discharge.  He informed her that her reluctance to provide this information had an effect on her family situation, was keeping her from training and would continue to do so.  Accordingly, she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry-level separation.  He also informed her that her inability to provide legal documentation and proper care for her children made continued service almost impossible.  The applicant concurred with the counseling.

The applicant was counseled by her first sergeant (1SG) as well, in regard to her repeated and failed attempts to get the proper documentation for a hardship discharge.  He indicated that she continued to have severe child care and custody problems and that continued service under those conditions would be counter-productive.  He recommended that she be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for failure to adapt to military life.

The applicant's commander then counseled her and informed her that he was recommending that she be discharged under chapter 11 for sociological problems, because of her inability to adapt to military life by failing to adequately provide for her children.  He went on to state that she had been unable to train and the situation would continue to be a problem.  He further stated that her request for a hardship discharge failed because of her inability to provide proof of custody of her three children.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 22 November 1996 which indicates that the applicant was mentally responsible; however, she was a       24-year old divorced female who had her three children residing with her father while she was attending training and who had recently had a stroke and could no longer care for the children.  She was extremely concerned with her children and the future.  The examining physician opined that she was experiencing Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, that she did not possess the necessary coping skills to become a successful member of the Army, that her main focus at the time was her children, and with this in mind, she may be a danger to herself and those around her due to lack of concentration.  The physician further opined that she had long term issues that could not be resolved by taking leave and that she would continue to be a problem for command as long as she remained in the service.  The physician recommended that she be discharged from the service due to failure to adapt.

The applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for her inability to adjust to military life.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant's inability to provide the necessary legal documentation needed for her request for a hardship discharge and opined that the inability to provide a proper dependent care plan made continued service impossible.  He advised the applicant that he was recommending that she receive an uncharacterized entry-level separation.  The applicant waived all of her rights, to include the opportunity to consult with counsel. 

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 26 November 1996 and directed that she receive an uncharacterized, entry-level separation.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 4 December 1996, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, due to entry-level performance and conduct, with her service uncharacterized.  She had served 5 months and 14 days of active service and received a separation code of "JGA" and an RE Code of "3."

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry level status (less than 180 days of active service).  This policy applied to individuals who have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention because they cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training and they lack the aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline for military service, or that they have demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  Personnel separated under this provision will be separated with their service uncharacterized.

Army Regulation 601-210 provides the guidance for the issuance of RE Codes upon separation from active duty.  It states, in pertinent part, that these codes are not to be considered derogatory in nature, they are simply codes that are used for identification of an enlistment processing procedure.  RE-3 applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable.  Personnel desiring to obtain a waiver must apply at their nearest Armed Forces Recruiting Station.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 provides the SPD codes to be used to designate the authority and reason for separation.  The code "JGA" denotes a separation for entry-level performance and conduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. 

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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant's contentions that she was mislead to believe that she was receiving a hardship discharge and finds it to be without merit.  The evidence of record clearly documents that the chain of command attempted to assist her in receiving a hardship discharge and only after she failed to provide the necessary documents and her training was affected, did the command initiate action to separate her under the provisions of entry-level performance and conduct. 

4.  The evidence of record also clearly documents that she was counseled by her chain of command and that she acknowledged the counselings and the basis for initiation of her separation under chapter 11.  The applicant waived all of her rights and declined the opportunity to consult with counsel.

5.  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.

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

___jm___  __kan ___  ___le ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087825	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/10/02	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1996/12/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH11	
DISCHARGE REASON	ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE/CONDUCT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  516	144.2900/A29.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.