IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110024138 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 correction of her narrative reason for separation and separation code. 2. The applicant states she feels her narrative reason for separation and separation code are incorrect because she believes she met the "24/36-month rule." 3. The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and a copy of an Education Management Information System printout. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's records are somewhat incomplete; however, they show she enlisted at Fort Gillem, Georgia, on 23 May 2002. She elected enrollment in the Montgomery BI Bill Act of 1984. The length of her enlistment cannot be determined from the available records; however, the Education Management Information System printout she provided indicates she enlisted for 3 years. She completed training as a food service specialist and was serving in Korea when she was processed for separation. 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding her administrative discharge are not present in the available records; however, her records contain a duly-authenticated DD Form 214 showing she was honorably discharged on 11 December 2004 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance. She completed 2 years, 6 months, and 19 days of active service. She was assigned a separation code of "JHJ" which applies to separation due to unsatisfactory performance. 3. On 15 October 2010, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to change the narrative reason for separation and separation code for her discharge. On 15 June 2011, the ADRB determined that her narrative reason for separation and separation code were correct and voted to deny her request. 4. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, establishes policy and provides guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service. An individual may be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it is determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. A discharge under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate and a separation code of "JHJ" is issued to reflect separation under that paragraph. 5. Department of Veterans Affairs booklet, Federal Benefits for Veterans, states service members can apply for VA educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill after completing 36 continuous months of active duty, or 24 continuous months of active duty if they first signed up for less than 3 years. It also states servicemembers who did not complete the required period of military service may be eligible if discharged, in part, for the convenience of the government with 30 continuous months of service for an obligation of 3 or more years, or 20 continuous months of service for an obligation of less than 3 years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant's rights. 2. Accordingly, the narrative reason for separation and separation code were appropriate under the circumstances. 3. The applicant's contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief because there is no error or injustice in her case and the Board does not change records simply to qualify individuals for benefits. Accordingly, there is no basis to grant her request for a change in the narrative reason for her discharge or the separation code associated with that discharge. 4. It appears the applicant enlisted for three years, and she completed just over 30 months of continuous service. She appears to have met the broad outlines of the 24/36 month rule. However, Department of Veterans Affairs policy is that servicemembers who did not complete the required period of military service MAY be eligible if discharged for the convenience of the government with 30 continuous months of service for an obligation of 3 or more years. The Department of Defense has no jurisdiction over the Department of Veterans Affairs. Any question she has concerning her entitlement to educational benefits must be raised with the Department of Veterans Affairs. 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 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) AR20110024138 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110024138 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1