ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:    BOARD DATE: 15 April 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200002840 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of his uncharacterized character of service. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. DD Form 293 (Application for the Army Discharge Review Board) . DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) . letter from Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2. 
The applicant states he believes the letters "Hon" appeared on his DD Form 214 at one time.  He was unable to get qualified for fee waivers which would allow him to apply Florida Department of Education for purposes of employment.  In today's world, fees may be required for employment application i.e. there is no request for shoe leather wear and usage.  He's applying for substitute teacher employment in a county that requires 60 college credits. He has 105.5 credits and wished to seek employment yet the word "uncharacterized" is impending employment. He's asks the Board to please help. He was admitted to the Army hospital on his birthday, , where he remained until he was discharged.  He had qualified for the Army position in which Soldiers were promoted to Sergeant after advanced individual training (AIT).  He took the test in Oakland, California for this in a critical military occupational specialty (MOS). The MOS had a one year wait which is why he was switched to something that began sooner.  If the Board assisted it would be for the purposes of employment and self-improvement. 

3. 
The applicant provided a letter from the VA, dated 5 July 2019, which shows the applicant received $140.05 per month; however, it does not indicate what he is receiving the compensation for. 

4. 
On 14 April 1983, the applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program (DEP), at the age 23 years old, for a period of 6 years. On 3 August 1983, the applicant was discharged from the USAR DEP and entered active duty for a period of 4 years. 

5. 
The applicant received six counseling statements while he was in an entry level status on: 


. 15 August 1983, in his first week of training, for failing to shave 
. 17 August 1983, in his first week of training, for displaying dirty boots on top of his wall locker 
. 19 August 1983, in his first week of training, for reporting to sick call late and not taking his equipment with him to sick leave 
. 20 August 1983, in his first week of training, for failing to make his 0515 formation 
. 23 August 1983, in his second week of training, from his commander reiterating the counseling he had previously received 
. 24 August 1983, in his second week of training, for scoring an 18.1 percent on a test 
6. 
On 29 August 1983, the applicant's commander proposed separation action under the provisions of Chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation ­Enlisted Personnel) for the applicant because of his continued failure to adapt and poor performance.  Despite repeated counseling, he had not shown improvement in his performance. The applicant acknowledged receipt of notification and stated, he did not waive his righted, he did not desire to consult with consulting counsel, he did not desire to make statements on his own behalf, he requested a copy of the documentation supporting his separation and did not request a separation physical. 

7. 
On 6 October 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for failing to obey a lawful order.  His punishment was forfeiture of $133.00 and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. 

8. 
On 24 October 1983, the appropriate approval authority waived the rehabilitative requirement and approved the separation of the applicant. The applicant would receive an entry level separation and an uncharacterized discharge. 

9. 
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty on 3 August 1983 and was discharged on 31 October 1983.  He had 2 months and 28 days of active duty service. He did not receive an MOS nor any awards or decorations. He received an uncharacterized character of service. 

10. 
The applicant requests his uncharacterized character of service be changed to honorable because, without an honorable discharge, he is unable to get the military fees waiver which would allow him to apply to the Florida Department of Education for employment. He was admitted to the Army hospital and stayed until his discharge.  He had qualified for an Army position that once he graduated for AIT would make him a sergeant. 


a. 
The applicant's service records do not contain medical documentation showing he had been in the hospital prior to his discharge.  They do not contain information regarding his MOS. 

b. 
The applicant's service records contain six counseling statements and one nonjudicial punishment while he was in an entry level status. 

c. 
During the applicant's era of service, commanders could, per chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, initiate separation action against Soldiers who demonstrated unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions (or both) as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort, or failure to adapt to the military environment. 


(1) 
Paragraph 11-4 (Counseling and Rehabilitation Requirements) stated before initiating separation action commanders would insure that the member received adequate counseling and rehabilitation. 

(2) 
The regulation also stipulated commander's use of the notification procedure when advising the Soldier of the contemplated separation action. The notification procedure involved giving the Soldier a written notice of the proposed separation, which specified the type of separation, the reason for the commander's action, and the Soldier's rights under the regulation; those rights included: consultation with military counsel, submission of statements in his/her own behalf, copies of documents to be sent to the separation authority, and the ability to waive the aforementioned rights in writing. The Soldier was to indicate on an "Election of Rights" document whether he/she had consulted with counsel and was or was not submitting matters in his/her own behalf. 

(3) 
Soldiers who were separated while in an entry-level status were to be issued an uncharacterized character of service. The Secretary of the Army could, on a case-by-case basis, issue an honorable character of service to entry-level Soldiers when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or duty performance.  

d. 
The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgraded characters of service solely to make the applicant eligible for benefits; however, in reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, as well as 


his statements, in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
1. After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The applicant’s contentions, the military service record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board considered the 
applicant’s statement, his military service record and documents provided by the 
applicant. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. The applicant did not complete training and was released from active duty. As such, his DD Form 214 properly shows his service as uncharacterized. 
2. 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 or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 
BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING XXX XXX XXX DENY APPLICATION 
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. 
REFERENCES: 
1. 
Title 10, USC, 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 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. 

2. 
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. 


a. 
An honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. 

b. 
Effective 1 October 1982, a revision of AR 635-200 mandated that Soldiers who were separated while in an entry-level status were to be issued an uncharacterized character of service. The Secretary of the Army could, on a case-by-case basis, issue an honorable character of service to entry-level Soldiers when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or duty performance. 

c. 
Chapter 11 (Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct). Commanders were to initiate separation action against Soldiers who demonstrated unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions (or both) as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort, or failure to adapt to the military environment. 


(1) 
Paragraph 11-4 indicated counseling and rehabilitation requirements were essential in cases where entry level performance and conduct served as the basis for separation; before initiating separation, the regulation stated commanders were responsible for ensuring Soldiers received adequate counseling and rehabilitation. 

(2) 
The regulation also stipulated commander's use of the notification procedure when advising the Soldier of the contemplated separation action. The notification procedure involved giving the Soldier a written notice of the proposed separation, which specified the type of separation, the reason for the commander's action, and the Soldier's rights under the regulation; those rights included: consultation with military counsel, submission of statements in his/her own behalf, copies of documents to be sent to the separation authority, and the ability to waive the aforementioned rights in writing. The Soldier was to indicate on an "Election of Rights" document whether he/she had consulted with counsel and was or was not submitting matters in his/her own behalf. 

(3) 
Soldiers separated in an entry-level status were required to be issued uncharacterized characters of service. 


3. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//