IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004606 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 correction of the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 2. The applicant states the reason for his discharge was simply because he did not want to become a mechanic, nothing more nothing less. However, his paperwork indicates the reason for the unsatisfactory designation indicates he refused to train. His statements and the recommendation for separation clearly states his reason is that he had no desire to be in the 91L (Construction Equipment Repairer) course. His desire to be a Soldier was never the question, he would have loved to go infantry, Special Forces or intelligence. His Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) score made that impossible at the time and he totally understands, but he never wanted to be separated from the Army. He just wanted to be all he could be in a different specialty. 3. The applicant provides a copy of a 3 September 2003 memorandum, a college transcript, and his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) proceedings. 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 2 March 2010 with a training option in military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist) and Basic Airborne Training. He enlisted for a 3-year period. He stated he understood by signing DA Form 3286 (Statement for Enlistment – U.S. Army Enlistment Program) that he if he was relieved from training for academic deficiency or disciplinary reasons or misconduct, he would be trained in accordance with the needs of the Army and required to complete the term of his enlistment. 3. On 5 May 2010, the applicant requested reclassification into Special Forces training and an overseas assignment. 4. On 18 June 2010, he was administratively dropped from his MOS 92Y training due to failure to accomplish the course objectives. He was reclassified into the 91L MOS training program. 5. He received disciplinary counseling statements from numerous superiors on – * 4 August 2010, for being late for training, falling asleep in class, lack of motivation, and not participating in practical exercises * 6 August 2010, for failure to go to his place of duty and unwillingness to go to class and train * 9 August 2010, for lack of motivation, unwillingness to become a 91L, and failure to make a passing score on the shop operations test twice by scoring a "0" which is an intentional failure * 11 August 2010, for proposed discharge for patterns of misconduct by purposely failing MOS 91L course tests, unwillingness to train, and continuous lack of motivation * 30 August 2010, for proposed discharge for unsatisfactory performance 6. In his written responses to the counseling statement, the applicant stated that he had no desire to be trained in the 91L MOS and was aware of his actions and the potential imposition of punishments for his academic failures. He stated he knew he sounded arrogant and admitted to being stubborn. However, he firmly stated that the MOS was not a match for him and he would like to do something that would ultimately help him and the Army5. 7. The applicant receive nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 11 August 2010, for failure to go to his place of duty and for sleeping in class. 8. On 3 September 2010, the applicant's unit commander initiated separation proceeding under Army Regulation 600-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. His duty MOS was shown as 91L. The commander stated that the applicant had clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to train and stated that he had no desire to be in the 91L course. 9. On 3 September 2010, the applicant acknowledged the separation recommendation and waived his administrative rights. 10. The discharge authority approved the separation action on 7 September 2010 and directed that his characterization of service be shown as honorable. He was ineligible for transfer to the U.S. Army Reserve. 11. The applicant's original 15 September 2010 DD Form 214 shows he had 6 months and 14 days of creditable active duty with no lost time. His service was uncharacterized. * item 26 (Separation Authority) shows Army Regulation 632-200, chapter 13 * item 26 (Separation Code) shows "JHJ" * item 27 (Reentry Code) shows "3" * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) "Unsatisfactory Performance" 12. On 11 April 2013, the ADRB denied his request to change his narrative reason for separation. However, the ADRB administratively corrected his DD Form 214 to show an honorable characterization of service due to an administrative error in the preparation of his DD Form 214 at the time of his initial separation from active duty. 13. The applicant provided a college transcript showing completion of a 720 hours of Homeland Security and Investigation Program on 12 July 2013 with a grade point average of 92.08%. 14. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 15. Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents) in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. It states the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. For item 26 (Separation Authority) enter the regulatory or other authority used in the separation processing of Soldiers. For item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) enter the narrative reason for separation as defined by item 26. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contractually enlisted with the training option for MOS 92Y and Basic Airborne Training. He acknowledged by signing his contract that he could be reclassified based on the needs of the Army if he failed to achieve course standards. He was reclassified into the MOS 91L course due to his failure to accomplish the 92Y course objectives. 2. The applicant stated he did not believe that the 91L MOS was right for him and admitted that he had purposely failed tests to be removed from the course. 3. The applicant intentionally failed two different MOS training courses, both times for failing to complete the required course objectives. There is no justification or reason to change the applicant's narrative reason for separation for his separation was based on unsatisfactory performance – failure to achieve academic course standards. 4. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. In fact, in his statements found in his separation case file he readily admitted to intentionally failing the prescribed course examinations because he was dissatisfied with the MOS. By his own admission, his performance of duty was unsatisfactory. 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. 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) AR20150004606 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004606 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1