IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011265 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: 2 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: 20150011265 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: 2 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011265 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, in effect, correction of her records to show her entitlement to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits, such as medical and housing. 2. The applicant states: a.  She completed 24 months of consecutive military service and would like to be recognized with her eligibility. b.  She is indigent and she has health issues. She would like to pursue housing and she needs a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to obtain a VA medical enrollment card. c.  She has a stack of military records that contain four DD Forms 214, two of which are honorable and two are uncharacterized. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) under the Delayed Entry Program on 14 February 1980. 3. Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station, Spokane, WA, Enlistment/ Travel Order Number 32-8, dated 14 February 1980, ordered her to commence extended active duty for 36 months effective 5 August 1980. 4. Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station, Spokane, WA, Order Number 155-9, dated 4 August 1980, amended Order Number 32-8, dated 14 February 1980, same unit, and changed her reporting date to 11 August 1980. 5. Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station, Spokane, WA, Order Number 158-2, dated 7 August 1980, amended Order Number 155-9, dated 4 August 1980, same unit, and changed her reporting date to 7 October 1980. 6. On 13 August 1980, the U.S. Army Seattle District Recruiting Command approved the applicant's discharge from the Delayed Entry Program to pursue higher education. 7. On 13 August 1980, she was honorably discharged from the USAR Delayed Entry Program. 8. Her records are void of and she failed to provide enlistment documents after 13 August 1980 and before 16 March 1985 or separation documents for this period. 9. Her records contain a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice), dated 5 May 1982, that shows she accepted nonjudicial punishment while assigned to Company A, 2d Battalion, Academy Brigade, Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, TX, for being absent without leave (AWOL) on or about 6 April 1982 until on or about 4 May 1982. 10. On 12 April 1983, she submitted a State of Washington Employment Security Department Request for Military Document/Information for Unemployment Compensation Purposes form to the National Personnel Records Center. This form shows: * she requested a copy of her DD Form 214 * she indicated she was a member of the Army National Guard during the period November 1981 to August 1982 * she authorized the release of her information to the Benefits Branch, Employment Security Department, Olympia, WA * no records could be located showing her service for this period 11. On 16 March 1985, she again enlisted in the USAR under the Delayed Entry Program. 12. On 8 April 1985, she was discharged from the USAR for immediate enlistment in the Regular Army. 13. On 9 April 1985, she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. 14. On 30 July 1985, she accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL on or about 17 July 1985 until on or about 26 July 1985. 15. The DA Form 4856-R (General Counseling Form), dated 6 August 1985, shows she was counseled regarding to her lack of motivation and self-discipline. She stated she would be AWOL again if she could not be discharged from the military. Her immediate discharge was recommended. 16. On 8 August 1985, she declined a medical examination for separation. 17. The DA Form 4856-R, dated 12 August 1985, shows she was counseled regarding her lack of self-discipline, motivation, attitude, and desire to be a good Soldier. The form also shows: a.  She stated she would be AWOL if she were not discharged from the Army. b.  She had been AWOL before and it appeared she could not correct her shortcomings. She refused to train and to act as a Soldier. c.  She had been given chances and opportunities by being counseled and talked to by drill sergeants, the first sergeant, and the company commander. d.  She did not and would not change her mind to get motivated and become a good productive Soldier. e.  She would either be AWOL or commit suicide to receive a discharge from the Army. Her immediate discharge was recommended. 18. The DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 12 August 1985, shows she underwent a psychiatric/psychological evaluation on the same date. She was found to have a deficiency in attitude and motivation. She was cleared for any action deemed appropriate by her command. Her evaluator wrote the following remarks: SM [service member] insisted that there was no possible way of her successfully completing BT [basic training]. Our evaluation suggests a very immature, self serving, impulsive, and demanding, individual with a low tolerance for stress. She stated as long as she is retained she will continue to attempt AWOL without consequence to herself. This individual has a high potential for acting out in order to manipulate a discharge. In view of negative attitude, immaturity, lack of insight, and motivation, she is likely to be a management problem and a disruptive influence. Recommend expeditious discharge. 19. The DA Form 4856-R, dated 13 August 1985, shows she was counseled regarding her lack of self-discipline, desire to be part of the military, and showing no positive responses to corrective actions to help her become part of the Army. She stated she would be AWOL again if not released from the military. 20. On 13 August 1985, she was notified of her immediate commander's intent to initiate discharge action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, based on her unresponsiveness to corrective action since returning from an AWOL status, lack of desire to be a productive member of the military, and stating she would be AWOL again. She was advised of her rights. 21. On 13 August 1985, she acknowledged receipt of her separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. She elected not to consult with counsel, make statements in her own behalf, obtain copies of documents sent to the separation authority supporting her separation action, or request a separation physical. 22. Her company commander concurred with the proposed separation action based on her failure to adapt sociologically (included discipline). He indicated: * she had been rehabilitatively recycled and she was in her 5th week of advanced individual training * further active duty service would – * create serious disciplinary problems or hazards to the military mission or to herself * be inappropriate because she was obviously resisting all rehabilitation attempts * rehabilitation would not produce the quality Soldier desired by the Army 23. On 15 August 1985, the separation authority approved her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3(a), and directed that she not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. 24. The DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 19 August 1985, shows: * her status changed from present for duty to AWOL on 17 August 1985 * she would be discharged absentia 25. On 23 August 1983, she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraphs 11-3(a) and 11-3(b). Her DD Form 214 for this period shows: * she completed 4 months and 8 days of creditable active service * she had lost time during the period 17 August 1985 to 23 August 1985 * her service was uncharacterized * her narrative reason for separation was entry-level status performance and conduct REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for entry-level status performance and conduct. Paragraph 11-3 (Separation Policy) applies to Soldiers enlisted in the Regular Army, Army National Guard, or USAR. b.  Paragraph 11-3(a) states Soldiers who cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life demonstrate they are not qualified for retention. c.  Paragraph 11-3(b) states Soldiers who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline demonstrate they are not qualified for retention. d.  Paragraph 11-8 states service will be characterized as entry level – uncharacterized – under the provisions of this chapter. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. The VA, operating under Title 38, U.S. Code, administers benefits to service members, veterans, and their dependents and survivors. DISCUSSION: 1. Although the applicant contends she completed 24 months of consecutive military service and she has four DD Forms 214, her records are void of and she failed to provide evidence of 24 months of consecutive service. Her records only contain a DD Form 214 for the period 9 April 1985 to 23 August 1985. 2. The evidence of record shows she was AWOL on two occasions and she lacked the motivation and self-discipline to be a productive Soldier. Further, she refused to complete her required training and she threatened to be AWOL if she were not discharged. 3. She has not provided any evidence showing she was not properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time. Her personal conduct and performance of duty were not consistent with Army standards. 4. The ABCMR does not grant requests for discharge upgrades solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for veterans' benefits. Every case is individually decided based upon its merits. Additionally, granting veterans' benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR. Any questions regarding eligibility for veterans' benefits should be addressed to the entity granting the benefits. 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 failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011265 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011265 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2