ABCMR Memorandum of                                                             AR2001062739
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 November 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062739

	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. Carl W. S. Chun | | Director
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | | Chairperson
| Mr. Lester Echols | | Member
| Mr. John T. Meixell | | 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:  In effect, that his narrative reason for separation be changed to “Hardship” instead of “Entry level status performance and conduct”.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he requested a hardship discharge and he believes his records support such a discharge.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); four DA Forms 4856-R (General Counseling Form); a VA Form 
10-7131 (Exchange of Beneficiary Information and Request), dated 29 March 1988; a Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 July 1984; and a notification of Proposed Separation Action, dated 31 July 1984.  

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

The applicant entered active duty on 27 March 1984 for a period of 4 years.   

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records.  However, the applicant provided four general counseling forms which show that he was counseled while in advanced individual training for low motivation, substandard performance, and a negative attitude.  The counseling forms also indicate that the applicant had family and emotional problems and that the applicant requested a discharge under the provisions of the Trainee Discharge Program. 

The applicant also provided a copy of his notification of pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, which was dated 31 July 1984.  The unit commander cited that the applicant could not or would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that, on 14 August 1984, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, paragraph 11-3a, for entry level status performance and conduct (Trainee Discharge Program).  His character of service was characterized as entry level status  (uncharacterized).  He had served 4 months and 18 days of total active service.

Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows “Entry level status performance and conduct”.

Item 26 (Separation Code) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows “JGA”.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JGA” is “Entry level status performance and conduct or entry level status performance - pregnancy” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, paragraph 11-3a or b.  

There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant requested a hardship discharge.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant was denied a hardship discharge.

There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status.  This provision of the regulation applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were 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 that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  The regulation states that a soldier is in an entry level status if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.  The soldier’s service is uncharacterized when separated under this chapter.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.

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 Board considered the applicant’s contentions that he requested a hardship discharge, that his records support his claim for a hardship discharge and that his narrative reason for separation should changed to “Hardship”.  However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he requested a hardship discharge.  The applicant’s counseling forms indicate that he requested a discharge under the Trainee Discharge Program.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry level status and performance and conduct, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations at the time of his separation from active duty. 

3.  The narrative reason for separation used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation issued to him was in error or unjust.

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.
 
6.  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

AAO___  LE_______  JTM_____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2001062739
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 20011127
TYPE OF DISCHARGE |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19840814
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11
DISCHARGE REASON | Entry level status performance and conduct
BOARD DECISION | (DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | 110.0200
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |