IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150001983 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 an upgrade of his uncharacterized service to general. 2. The applicant states, in effect: * he was asked to sign a general discharge * he fell, hurt his back, and asked to go to sick call * he did his best, but he felt he was done wrong and would like to have this corrected * he wants all that is owed to him because he defended his country and was let down 3. The applicant provides no additional documents. 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 16 September 1994 for a period of 2 years and 23 weeks. 3. On 3 October 1994, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was diagnosed as having an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and strong passive-aggressive, avoidant and dependent personality traits. He was depressed and had suicidal thoughts. The psychologist recommended the unit remove the applicant from training and observe him closely until he was separated from the service. 4. The command initiated an expeditious administrative separation under the applicable provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 and the applicant was monitored as he continued to go to the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) during his remaining time on active duty. 5. On 12 October 1994, the applicant's company commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, for entry level status performance and conduct due to his inability to adapt to the military. He was advised of his rights. He waived his right to consult with legal counsel and did not submit statements in his own behalf. 6. On 12 October 1994, the applicant's company commander recommended his separation from the U.S. Army prior to expiration of his term of service. The company commander stated the applicant arrived in the unit with numerous personal problems stating he could not forget the past and expressing a desire to be discharged. The applicant was referred to CMHS for counseling and was considered to be at high risk for suicidal gestures. In addition, the company commander stated the applicant lacked the motivation and desire to successfully complete training. 7. On 18 October 1994, the separation authority waived the rehabilitative requirement and approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry level status performance and conduct with uncharacterized service. 8. On 21 October 1994, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 chapter 11, for entry level status performance and conduct with uncharacterized service. He completed 1 month and 6 days of active military service. 9. The applicant's service record does not contain medical documentation that shows he injured himself while on active duty. 10. The applicant's service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. 11. Army Regulation 635-200, 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 separation under this chapter applies to Soldiers who are in an 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 AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contend that he asked to signed a general discharge; however, the available evidence shows that he signed the discharge that he received and his record is void of evidence to support his claim. 2. The applicant contends that he fell, hurt his back, and asked to go to sick call. However, his service record is void of evidence and he has not provided any evidence which shows he fell or injured himself. 3. The applicant contends he was "done wrong," would like to have this corrected, and he wants all that is owed him. However, his administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations at the time. 4. The applicant's service record is void of evidence of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 5. The applicant was in an entry level status at the time of discharge because he had served fewer than 180 days of active Federal service. The determination that the applicant's service was "uncharacterized" was in compliance with the Army regulation governing the separation of Soldiers while in an entry level status. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 6. There is no apparent error or injustice on which to base recharacterization of his service from uncharacterized to general. 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) AR20150001983 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150001983 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1