IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120000149 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade or change of the type of discharge she received. 2. She states she is not receiving the veterans benefits to which she is entitled. 3. The applicant provides no documentation in support of her request. 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. On 10 April 1989, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve for a period of 8 years. 3. On the same date, she was ordered to initial active duty for training (ADT) with a reporting date of 9 May 1989. Her record shows she reported as ordered. 4. On 24 July 1989, her commander informed her he was initiating action to discharge her from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, for failure to adapt motivationally, emotionally, and sociologically. 5. On the same date, she acknowledged notification of the proposed action to separate her. She indicated she understood that if the action were approved she would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. She indicated she did not desire to consult with counsel or to submit statements in her own behalf. 6. On 25 July 1989, the separation authority approved her discharge. On 31 July 1989, she was discharged. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows her service was uncharacterized and the reason for her separation was entry-level status performance and conduct. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 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 or 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 they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. The regulation required an uncharacterized description of service for separation under this chapter. 8. A member of a Reserve component who is not on active duty or who is serving under a call or order to active duty for 180 days or less begins entry-level status upon enlistment in a Reserve component. Entry-level status of such a member of a Reserve component terminates (a) 180 days after beginning training if the Soldier is ordered to ADT for one continuous period of 180 days or more; or (b) 90 days after the beginning of the second period of ADT if the Soldier is ordered to ADT under a program that splits the training into two or more separate periods of active duty. For the purposes of characterization of service, the Soldier's status is determined by the date of notification as to the initiation of separation proceedings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges or changes to types of discharges solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for veterans benefits. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for failure to adapt motivationally, emotionally, and sociologically. Discharge under this chapter required that her service be uncharacterized. All requirements of law and regulation were met and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. The evidence of record does not show and the applicant has not provided evidence showing any errors in the discharge she received. In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis for granting the requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X_____ ____X____ ____X____ 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. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120000149 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120000149 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1