IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003458 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ____x___ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003458 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003458 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 his separation documents to show Failure to Adapt "Emotionally" instead of "Motivationally." He also requests his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show his reentry (RE) code as "1" and properly list his weapons qualification badges. 2. The applicant states: a. There was no counseling done for him at any point in time. A drill sergeant poisoned the minds of the Soldiers in both squads about him to get him to quit the service. They were disruptive to him by ruining his bunk every time he made it. He was nervous from being intruded upon by a drill sergeant while in a bathroom stall, attacking him in the gas chamber, attacking his religion and he was the victim of racial profiling. b. The item Failure to Adapt in his discharge packet shows "Motivationally" and it should be marked "Emotionally." The situation was brought on by the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR), its staff and the squad. It even states in a 16 February 1990 General Counselling Form that he showed excessive signs of stress. c. He has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 3. The applicant provides: * a personal letter to the Board * DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form) * separation documents, dated April 1990 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Behavioral Health (BH) Services Psychiatric Evaluation Update, dated January 2015 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 9 February 1990. He did not complete training. 3. A DA Form 4856 shows the applicant was counseled on 16 February 1990 by Sergeant First Class (SFC) L____ T. B_____ because he showed excessive signs of stress. SFC B_____ stated that after picking up the applicant at the reception station he noticed the applicant seemed to be very nervous. SFC B_____ called the applicant into his office and asked if he had any problems. The applicant stated that there were none. He seemed to be distant, almost disinterested about what SFC B_____ was saying. SFC B_____ further indicated that despite rehabilitation efforts the applicant's attitude did not seem to improve. He was having trouble with his roommates and a possible room change may be in order. 4. The applicant’s complete discharge documentation is not available for review; however, his records contain: a. A 2nd indorsement, dated 6 April 1990, showing he was recommended for separation. He was in the 7th week of basic training. He had been recycled, but had not completed basic training. He was recommended for separation due to failure to adapt "Motivationally." b. A 3rd Indorsement, dated 10 April 1990, showing the Battalion Commander waived further recycle requirements and directed the applicant's separation under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 11-3a. 5. The applicant was discharged on 13 April 1990. He had completed 2 months and 5 days of active service. His DD Form 214 shows in: * item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized): the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars * item 24 (Character of Service): Uncharacterized * item 26 (Separation Code): "JGA" * item 27 (Reentry Code): "3" * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation): Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct 6. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) shows he was awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars. 7. He provides copies of: a. A personal letter to the Board in which he describes his experiences in the Army and states he believes things were done to keep him from graduating from basic training. He ended up aggravating his anxiety condition. b. BH Services Psychiatric Evaluation Update, dated 13 January 2015, showing he claimed to have been in the Army in February 1990 and went to Desert Storm. He was experiencing flashbacks of military authorities mistreating him physically and he had nightmares about being in the gas chamber. He was diagnosed with PTSD. 8. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, BH Division, Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG). The opining official noted: a. In January 2015, the applicant requested his record be corrected as follows: "Failure to adapt marked motivationally, should have been marked emotionally brought on by the USAR, its staff and squad." He also asked that the reentry code on his DD 214 be change from “3” to “1.” The Office of The Surgeon General was asked to determine if the applicant should be separated for mental Illness instead of entry level performance. This opinion is based solely on the information provided by the Board as the Department of Defense electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not in use at the time of his service. b. There are no BH records from the applicant's period of service. The only related record is a counseling statement, dated 16 February 1990, in which a noncommissioned officer stated he observed the "Soldier showed excessive signs of stress" and asked what was causing his anxiety. Although he did not respond at the time, it was later discovered he was having trouble with roommates. c. The only BH documentation included in the applicant's file is a psychiatric evaluation update conducted on 13 January 2015 in which he is described as "fearful of people but denies hearing voices" and "experiencing flashbacks of military authorities mistreating him physically and has nightmares of being in a gas chamber." This psychiatrist diagnosed him with bipolar disorder, most recent episode mixed, with psychotic features, and PTSD. d. The disorganized thought process evident in the applicant's application as well as his connection to a community-based non-profit service organization that serves people with serious mental illness suggests that he is severely and chronically impaired by his psychiatric condition. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that he met criteria for a mental illness at the time of his separation. Furthermore, there are 25 years of the applicant's life unaccounted for and no indication as to his level of functioning over that period. Without more information about the course of his illness, it is not possible to offer an opinion regarding the nature of his separation. We highly recommend that the applicant contact the VA and veterans support agencies in his area for assistance. 9. On 12 May 2016, a copy of the advisory opinion was forward to the applicant for his information and comment. On 24 May 2016, he responded indicating he needed more time to respond. He also included a copy of the request he submitted, dated 21 November 1989, requesting to delay his release from the delayed entry program for a couple of months. No further response has been received. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11 of the regulation in effect at the time provided for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance or conduct, or both, while in an entry-level status. This provision applied to individuals who had demonstrated they were not qualified for retention because they: * could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life * lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline for military service * demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service 2. The separation policy applied to Soldiers who could not meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline. Separation under this chapter applied to Soldiers who were in an entry-level status (i.e., had completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty before the date of the initiation of separation action). An uncharacterized description of service was required for separation under this chapter. 3. Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) prescribes eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes including RA RE codes. RE-3 applies to persons separated with a waivable disqualification. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It states that the SPD code "JGA" is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table stipulates that an RE code of 3 will be assigned to members separated under these provisions with an SPD code of "JGA." DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant was discharged due to entry level performance. He failed to pass basic training despite being recycled. The governing regulation required an uncharacterized description of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative; it is not derogatory. It simply means the Soldier did not serve on active duty long enough for his service to be rated. 2. The applicant has not provided any convincing evidence showing his RE code of 3 is in error and should be changed. 3. His weapons qualification badges are properly listed on his DD Form 214. 4. There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant did not provide evidence to substantiate a change to his character of service or his RE code. 5. The available evidence does not show that he was attacked or racially profiled by anyone. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003458 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003458 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2