IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 November 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210007051 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge for Active Duty), for the period ending 8 March 1994, to show her service was characterized as honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 9 August 2020, with self-authored statement * DD Form 214, for the period ending 15 June 1989 * social security card, dated 20 October 2011 * Pharmacist Association Certificate Card, expires June 2011 and 31 December 2019 * U.S. Passport Card, issued 18 January 2012 * driver’s license, issued 22 May 2015, 25 June 2018 and 7 July 2020 * U.S. Uniformed Services Dependent Identification (ID) Card * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Certificate of Completion, VA Privacy and Information Security Awareness and Rules of Behavior, dated 27 January 2019 * VA, Certificate of Completion, Privacy and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Training, dated 27 January 2019 * Salt Lake Community College Associate of Science Degree, conferred on 9 May 2000 * Unarmed Security Officer Job Position, Security Management of South Carolina LLC, from www.Indeed.com * letter, dated 31 July 2020, Granger Medical Clinic, Salt Lake City, Utah * State of, Department of Commerce Active License, 30 September 2005, 22 June 2012, and 5 June 2013 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); 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: a. She is requesting a change to her service characterization, from uncharacterized to honorable. Her separation was originally honorable when she was separated from the Army in 1994. b. Her original separation was an honorable separation because she saved two privates in basic training. The base commander's daughter had double-loaded her M-16 weapon and she [the applicant] was told by the drill sergeant to let the base commander’s daughter have the range because he was involved in a conversation with a lieutenant, and in so much, she couldn't interrupt him. They were on the range for the final weapons qualification, and in the beginning the base commander's daughter was not chosen as her partner; her partner wanted to shoot twice on the range so she [the base commander's daughter] took his place by assignment from the drill sergeant. She proceeded to ignore her [the applicant] in handing her over the weapon she had double- loaded. The applicant had to pry the weapon out of the other girl's hands, while it began to explode. She [the applicant] threw the weapon away, into the dirt, so it was out of the way of anyone involved. She then hit the deck on the dirt while the weapon continued to blow up. At the time, she [the applicant] didn't know the other girl was the base commander's daughter. c. She was given separation since her MOS was medical. She was told she was too old to become a medical technician, and it was during the war in Bosnia; she was told that she looked too Russian to be a candidate. Further, the graduating staff said that she had earned an honorable discharge because she completed basic training with a Marksmanship qualification down to the day of graduation, honorable and good conduct, and for saving the life of the base commander's daughter with one more; the one who had disobeyed a direct order from the drill sergeant to be her partner at the beginning. d. She asks that the Board reconsider her service characterization from uncharacterized to honorable, due to her excellence. She was almost offered the MOS of supply but discriminated against that her race was Russian-looking. She was born in Ogden, Utah, USA. She wasn't even given a birth certificate until after her daughters were born in Fairborn, , with her previous husband in the Air Force. Her husband is Fxxxxxxx, who is retired from the Army. At her husband's encouragement, she has decided to write and request that the original discharge, which was honorable, be given back with due respect and honors in which she had performed during basic training with responsibility. e. She proudly served in the Army, even if only during basic training. She has been fired at every employed occupation since 1994 to the present year of 2020, sometimes more than three jobs a year, because her DD Form 214 say she was other than honorably discharged. She has had college, earned an Associates of Science degree, and is certified in unarmed and armed training as an officer for security. Additionally, she has an occupational license in the state of Utah (and nationally by the PTCB board for pharmacy) as a pharmacy technician. She is only given the answer to get her high school diploma and she is told that she did not get an honorable discharge. The only way to get a position in both candidate professions as security and pharmacy, is to have a high school diploma and the DD Form 214 must be honorable. Employer candidate professions she has applied to say that since she does not have either, she has not served in the Army. Further, that separated other than honorable, that it's dishonorable even if it's uncharacterized. It means in Salt Lake City UT and Sumter SC, that she is questionable, she has dishonored her country and them. f. She feels under the present position of another jobless field, she was told by a security company in Sumter, SC that if she did not have her original high-school diploma and if she did not have an honorable discharge, she has to be unselected as a candidate at all professions. She can't even get a job in clerical, and she is qualified for every job she has ensued since the beginning. After high-school graduation, she received a diploma and she was on the honor-roll. They all just say, "she is not Caucasian, she is not colored, she is red as in communist." She has voted all her life, she confirms now to you that the USA is her country, and that she is not red, nor Russian. She is a U.S. citizen and she is very disappointed in these areas she has tried to reach out to. Please, since she needs her original honorable discharge for any employment, and to not be threatened nor discriminated against, please reinstate her honorable discharge from uncharacterized back to honorable. Yes, she has been threatened by the Ku Klux Klan and there was an appeal that was shelved by the Anti- Discrimination Office downtown in the city Salt Lake, UT. It never was filed but might still be on record around the year 2009. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 January 1994. 4. The applicant was formally counseled on 19 February and 23 February 1994, for failure to repair, acting with disrespect toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO), failure to obey a lawful order, and failure to follow range safety procedures. 5. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 23 February 1994. The relevant DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) shows she had normal behavior; was fully alert and oriented; her mood was anxious she had clear thought process and normal thought content. The evaluating physician determine she had the mental capacity to understand and participate in any administrative proceedings and she was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her Command. The evaluating physician noted: a. Aside from some uncertain degree of hearing loss, there does not appear to be any physical or psychiatric illness resulting in comprehension loss. Psychological testing supports the diagnosis: (Axis II): Compulsive and Paranoid traits, which very likely predispose her to dysfunction in the basic training setting. b. The above diagnosis represents a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the Soldier's ability to perform duty. The disorder is so severe that the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired. It is unlikely that the Soldier will develop sufficiently through treatment, counseling, discipline, reassignment or rehabilitative efforts to become a satisfactory Soldier. c. The condition and the problems presented by this Soldier are not, in the opinion of the examiner, amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training or reclassification to another type of duty within the military. It is unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop this individual into a satisfactory Soldier will be successful. There is no mental disease or defect that warrants disposition through medical channels. The medical doctor recommended that the command initiate administrative separation under applicable provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). 6. The applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant's separation from service on 28 February 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, for entry level performance and conduct. 7. The applicant acknowledged, on or about 28 February 1994, she had been notified of her commander's intent to initiate actions to separate her from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11. She waived the right to consult with counsel. She elected not to make a statement in her own behalf. 8. The separation authority reviewed the proposed separation recommendation on 3 March 1994 and approved an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11. 9. The applicant was discharged on 8 March 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, by reason of entry level performance and conduct. The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she was credited with completing one month and 12 days of net active service and was not awarded a military occupational specialty. Her service was uncharacterized. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board considered the evidence, including the applicant's statement. Board members noted that she did not complete initial entry training and was not awarded an MOS. She completed 1 month and 12 days of active service and was not awarded a military occupational specialty. Her service was uncharacterized. Soldiers are considered to be in an entry-level status when they are within their first 180 days of active duty service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was in an entry- level status at the time of his separation. As a result, her service was appropriately described as "uncharacterized" in accordance with governing regulations at the time. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING XX: XX: XX: 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. 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 three 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 three-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, sets policies, standards, and procedures to insure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. a. Chapter 3 states a separation will be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time separation action is initiated. b. Paragraph 3-7a 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. c. Chapter 11 provides for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry-level status. When separation of a Soldier in an entry-level status is warranted by unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions (or both) as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort, or failure to adapt to the military environment, he or she will normally be separated per this chapter. Service will be uncharacterized for entry-level separation under the provisions of this chapter. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210007051 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210007051 7 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210007051 6