RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080001083 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Ms. Director M Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his entry level separation (ELS) be changed to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states that his captain told him he would receive an honorable discharge so that he could reenlist. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214) dated 5 April 1990. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 April 1990 and commenced basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 3. The applicant was repeatedly counseled about substandard performance, lack of motivation and poor attitude. He threatened to kill himself on 5 June 1990 and stated the next day that he had not meant it, that he was only frustrated and discouraged. 4. On 15 June 1990 the applicant was notified of the recommendation for ELS because he was unable to adapt to a military environment and he lacked the basic desire and motivation to become a productive Soldier. 5. The applicant acknowledged that he would be unable to apply for reenlistment for 2 years and he waived his separation processing rights, including consultation with counsel and the right to submit statements in his own behalf. 6. The applicant indicated that he did not desire a complete separation medical examination. 7. The discharge authority considered the case and directed that the applicant be separated with an uncharacterized ELS. He was so separated on 22 June 1990. He had completed 2 months and 18 days of creditable service. 8 Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11, of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status. This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. The separation policy applies to Soldiers who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline. The regulation requires uncharacterized service for separation under this chapter. 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 AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 3. 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. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __ PHM _ ___KSJ_ ___JGH __ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ________ PHM _ CHAIRPERSON . ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080001083 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4508 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080001083 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4508