IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003960 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 his uncharacterized discharge be changed to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). 2. The applicant states his discharge was due to extenuating family circumstances surrounding the birth of a new child at home and his spouse maladjustment to postpartum depression. 3. The applicant provides a DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form). 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's record shows that during the period in question, he enlisted in Minnesota Army National Guard (MNARNG) for a period of 8 years on 13 October 2009. He was ordered to initial active duty training on 5 July 2010. 3. On 16 July 2010, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation that showed the following: * his behavior and thought content were normal * his level of alertness was dull * he was fully oriented * his mood was congruent, appropriate, and unremarkable * his thinking process was clear * his judgment, memory, impulse control, concentration, and memory was fair * he was mentally responsible * he met retention requirements * he was psychiatrically cleared to return to his unit without any training restrictions * he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings 4. On 19 July 2010, the unit commander informed the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), (Entry Level Status (ELS) Performance and Conduct). The unit commander stated: a. A Community Behavioral Health Services physician spoke with the applicant on 16 July 2010 regarding his recent seizures and statements that he was not motivated to continue service in the military. b. The applicant had been taken to the emergency room and the Troop Medical Clinic on multiple occasions for seizures and because he had no documented history of the condition, an Existed Prior to Military Service separation was not possible. The applicant’s ability to perform to standard with this condition will make it impossible to complete training. c. If retained in service, the applicant would drain unit resources, degrade unit morale, with little to no chance of successful integration. d. The doctor believed his condition was more psychological and had little chance of improving. 5. On 20 July 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification and his understanding that if approved, he would receive an uncharacterized entry level separation (ELS). He declined the opportunity to consult with counsel and chose not to submit a statement on his own behalf. 6. On 26 July 2010, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge while in an ELS status. The separation authority directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200. 7. On 6 August 2010, the applicant was discharged accordingly, having completed 1 month and 2 days of active military service. The DD Form 214 shows he was discharged by reason of "entry level performance and conduct." 8. On 6 June 2008, after having carefully reviewed the applicant’s record and the issues he presented, the Army Discharge Review Board concluded the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and voted to deny his request for an upgrade. 9. Chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an ELS status. An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to Soldiers separating under this chapter. A general discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge is rarely ever granted. An honorable discharge may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends his uncharacterized discharge should be changed to a GD. 2. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 month and 2 days of active military service at the time of his separation. As a result, the separation action was initiated while he was in an ELS status. Further, the record shows the applicant's service was described as uncharacterized as a result of his being discharged while in an ELS status. A Soldier is in an ELS status, or probationary period, for the first 180 days of continuous active duty. 3. The issuance of a general discharge to members in an ELS status is not authorized and an honorable discharge may be granted only in cases that are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. Given no such unusual circumstances are present in the applicant's record; there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support changing the characterization of his service to honorable. 4. The record shows the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied. 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) AR20150003960 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003960 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1