MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            14 August 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089614

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		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:  That her uncharacterized discharge be changed to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time of her discharge she was lead to believe that the character of her service would be honorable.  She states that she was handed a stack of papers to sign without a full explanation.  She states that she was never given an opportunity to heal (medically) and to return to duty.  She states that the character of her service is hindering her from reentering the Army and from maintaining gainful employment.  In support of her appeal, she submits a copy of a rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs showing that she was awarded 10 percent service connection for residuals of the right knee.

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

On 25 June 1985, she enlisted in the Army at Fort McClellan, Alabama, for 4 years in the pay grade of E-3.  

The applicant was counseled while she was still in training regarding her lack of motivation, endurance and willingness to complete the course in which she made an obligation.  In the counseling session, her senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) stated that she arrived in the company on 30 August 1985 and that she had achieved absolutely nothing to benefit the Army or herself.  Her senior NCO further stated that the had gone to sick call 9 September through 30 September 1985, 1 October through 30 October 1985, 1 November through 22 November 1985, and 2 December through 3 December 1985, due to a knee injury and that she had made no attempt to negotiate any Army physical test or attempt to take it upon herself to recondition her mind and body to negotiate the course again.  She was told that her attitude and mind was on receiving a medical discharge instead of soldiering. Her senior NCO stated that if she were to be reclassified she would be useless to the military and if she received a medical discharge it would be a waste of time and money.  Her senior NCO stated that he would recommend that she be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, at the earliest available date.

On 29 November 1985, the applicant was counseled regarding her request for separation from the service.  Her senior NCO noted that she had been in the company for over 2 months in an inactive status due to a physical profile for a knee injury and that she had no desire to continue in the service.  Her senior NCO also noted that he had discussed with her the options that were available to her and that they could discuss her situation again the following week.

The applicant was counseled again on 3 December 1985, and she still had no desire to remain in the Army due to her inability to train.  During the counseling session, it was noted that her attitude was fair however, she would not be able to adapt to military life.  The unit commander indicated that she had a general lack of motivation and desire to remain on active duty and that she also seemed to resent military authority and supervision.

On 10 December 1985, the applicant was counseled regarding her continuous medical problems, which kept her from being able to train in her military occupational specialty (wire system installer).  She was informed that the doctors had stated that her physical profile would continue for up to 6 months and that she would not be medically discharged.  The applicant still had no desire to remain in the Army and she wanted to be discharged so that her knee injury would heal.  The unit commander stated that was recommending that she be discharged from all obligations to the United States Army.

On 4 December 1985, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, based on her entry-level status and performance and conduct.  She acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, she waived her rights and she opted not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 11 December 1985.  Accordingly on 16 December 1985, she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, based on 
entry-level status performance and conduct, under the trainee discharge program.  She had completed 5 months and 22 days of total active service and the character of her service was uncharacterized.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an change to the character of her discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry-level status.  It states, in pertinent part, that separation under this chapter applies to soldiers who are in entry-level status and before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty and have demonstrated that they cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life.  Entry-level status is defined as the first 180 days of continuous active duty.  It further states that the character of service for members separated under the provisions of this chapter will be uncharacterized.

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 considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, the evidence of record fails to support her contention that she was told that the type of discharge she would receive would be an honorable discharge.  She was properly discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as she was in an entry-level status with less than 180 days of service.  Her service was properly uncharacterized.

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

___ja ___  ___rvo __  ___lb ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089614	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/08/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1985/12/16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 11	
DISCHARGE REASON	516	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  503	144.2500/TRAINEE DISCHARGE	
2.  514	144.2800/MEDICAL CONDITION	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.