IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 November 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110011452 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 that his uncharacterized discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states that at the time of discharge he was told he would receive an honorable discharge. 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. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 March 1984 for a period of 3 years and training as a combat engineer. He was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri to undergo his training. 3. On 14 May 1984, while in the 6th week of basic training, the applicant’s commander initiated action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army regulation 635-200, chapter 11, entry level status performance and conduct. He indicated that the applicant had problems with all aspects of training, especially physical readiness training and that he could only do 6 push-ups. The commander further indicated the applicant did not want to continue training and had given up. The commander stated the applicant indicated he wanted out of the Army because it was not as easy as he had been told. Accordingly, due to his lack of motivation and failure to adapt to the military, a discharge was recommended. The applicant was also advised that if the recommendation was approved, he would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. 4. The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel, acknowledged that he understood his service would be uncharacterized, waived all of his rights, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 5. On 16 May 1984, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that his service be uncharacterized. 6. Accordingly, he was discharged on 22 May 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, due to entry level performance and conduct. He had served 2 months and 3 days of active service and his service was uncharacterized. 7. There is no evidence in the applicant’s official records which shows he was informed his service would be characterized as honorable. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11 provides the policies and procedures for separating individuals who are in an entry level status (180 days or less) who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline. It provides that service under this provision will be uncharacterized unless the Secretary of the Army determines that a characterization of honorable is warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contentions that he was informed that his service would be characterized as honorable has been noted and appears to lack merit. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record that such was the case. To the contrary, the evidence of record shows he was advised that if the recommendation for separation was approved he would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. 2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 3. Inasmuch as he had less than 180 days of active service during his current enlistment, his service was properly uncharacterized and there appears to be no basis to characterize it as honorable. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X___ ___X____ ___X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110011452 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110011452 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1