IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012305 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012305 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012305 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 of his entry-level status discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states he wants his character of service changed to honorable for eligibility for veterans' benefits, schooling, and his personal satisfaction. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 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. Having prior service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 March 1985 for a period of 3 years. 3. His records show he was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program on 16 July 1985 as a self-referral for mixed drug abuse. He was enrolled in Track II rehabilitation and participated in one individual counseling session. On 26 July 1985, he was reported as being AWOL and allegedly under the influence of drugs at that time. His prognosis for successful rehabilitation was poor on that date. 4. On 26 July 1985, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 25 July 1985 to 26 July 1985. 5. His records contain a U.S. Army Europe Form 3133 (Unit Commanders Report for Psychiatric Examination), dated 29 July 1985, showing he was transported to the emergency room on 5 July 1985 for a psychiatric evaluation due to suicidal tendencies. The psychiatrist determined he had a severe problem but was not an immediate threat to himself or others and he was released to his unit later that day. 6. Discharge proceedings were initiated against him on 5 August 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, for unsatisfactory conduct while in an entry-level status. The unit commander recommended his receipt of an entry-level separation and cited the following reasons for his recommendation for separation: a. The applicant had less than 180 days of continuous active service. b. He was not qualified for retention in the Armed Forces because he demonstrated behavior characteristics not compatible with continued satisfactory service. c. On 11 July 1985, he was counseled for tardiness, negative attitude, poor personal hygiene, and sleeping on duty. d. On 14 July 1985, he was counseled for being late for work and falling asleep on the serving line while serving food. e. On 20 July 1985, he was released from work because he could not stay awake. f. He was AWOL from 25 July 1985 to 26 July. During this absence, he was seen downtown in an intoxicated state of mind. He subsequently received punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 7. On 5 August 1985, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge. 8. On 5 September 1985, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, by reason of entry-level status performance and conduct. His service was characterized as entry-level status. He completed 6 months and 1 day of creditable active service. 9. There is no evidence showing he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 11 provides for the separation of Soldiers because of unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct while in an entry-level status. This provision applies to individuals who demonstrate they are 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 demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. (1) Separation under this chapter applies to Soldiers who are in an entry-level status and have completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty before the date of initiation of separation action and demonstrated they could not or would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life. (2) Service will be described as uncharacterized under the provisions of this chapter. b. Chapter 3 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant indicates he wants his discharge upgraded to honorable so he can receive veterans' benefits. However, the character of a discharge is not changed solely for the purpose of qualifying an applicant for veterans' benefits. Each application is considered based on its individual merits. 2. The evidence shows he was discharged on 5 September 1985 for entry-level performance and conduct after completing only 6 months and 1 day of active service. His service was characterized as entry-level status (uncharacterized). 3. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reason were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150012305 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150012305 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2