MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030116

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That she be given credit for 16 days of additional active duty service.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she is 16 days short of the minimum of 180 days of active duty service necessary to qualify for Veterans benefits.  She further states that she was under the impression that she would be considered a veteran after her discharge; however, when she applied for employment at the Veterans Administration she was informed that she was 16 days short of the minimum required to receive veterans preference or benefits.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in Cincinnati, Ohio on 25 November 1992 for a period of 3 years and training as a light wheel vehicle mechanic.  She was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina to undergo basic training. 

The applicant failed to complete her initial basic training due to her inability to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and was recycled to another company.

On 4 May 1993 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, due to entry level status performance and conduct.  He cited the applicant’s inability to pass the APFT and provided approximately 15  counseling statements and her training records that indicated she had failed to meet the minimum requirements for graduation from basic training.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of proposed separation before completion of 179 days of active duty and further acknowledged that , if approved, she would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service that would prevent her from reenlisting within 2 years of her separation.  She also declined to consult with counsel, declined a separation physical, and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and she was discharged with uncharacterized service on 10 May 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a under entry level status.  She had served 5 months and 16 days of total active service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge to honorable and credit for an additional 16 days of service.  Although it was not within the authority of that board to grant her an additional 16 days of service, the ADRB considered her request to be issued an honorable discharge and denied her request on 17 March 2000.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry level status (less than 180 days of active service).  This policy applied to individuals who have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention because they cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training and they lack the aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline for military service, or that they have demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  Personnel separated under this provision will be separated with their service uncharacterized.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate given the circumstances in the case.

3.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

4.  Although the Board understands the applicant’s desires to receive VA benefits; the Board does not have jurisdiction over the benefits administered by that agency.  Nevertheless, the applicant was made aware of and acknowledged that her service would be uncharacterized and that she would be separated before 179 days of active service.  She was given sufficient opportunity and training to meet the required standards necessary to graduate basic training before separation action was initiated against her and she failed to take advantage of those opportunities.  Accordingly, her failure to do so does not constitute an error or injustice by the Department nor does it constitute a basis to grant her additional service that others in similar circumstances do not receive.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___ra___  ___wtm__  ___mvt__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030116	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1993/05/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH11	
DISCHARGE REASON	516	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 516	144.2900/A29.00/ELS	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.