IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003810 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: 3 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003810 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: 3 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003810 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, an upgrade of his entry-level separation. 2. He states that at the time of his discharge he was going through a rough time with his family and the military regulation concerning physical fitness requirements. Additionally, he states he was slightly overweight. He adds that his discussing these issues his drill sergeant led to a discussion with the colonel. They got into a heated discussion, which turned into an argument that ultimately resulted in his receipt of an other than honorable discharge. 3. He provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), Member copy * five supporting statements * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-22 (Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as Claimant's Representative), dated 2 February 2016 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 Army National Guard (ARNG) on 13 January 1984 and he was ordered to initial active duty training on 20 August 1984. 3. DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form) show while assigned to F Company, 4th Battalion, 2nd Infantry Training Brigade, Fort Benning, GA, he was counseled concerning the following issues: a. On 1 September 1984, failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) on 31 August 1984. He failed all three events: push-ups, sit-ups, and the two-mile run. He was placed on an additional physical fitness (PT) program. He concurred with the counseling. b. On 18 September 1984, failing the APFT on 17 September 1984. He failed the push-ups and sit-ups. The counselor informed him that he would perform additional PT each evening under the supervision of one of his drill sergeants. He concurred with the counseling. c. On 24 September 1984, his overall assessment. The counselor stated, "as it stands right now, you won't graduate with your peers. You have only two more weeks to get your act together, especially PT." He received an overall rating of "Unsat" based on the counselor's evaluation of his personal qualities and demonstrated performance. He signed the counseling form on 25 September 1984 acknowledging he had been counseled on his performance and overall evaluation. d. On 27 September 1984, failing the APFT on 26 September 1984. He failed the push-ups. The counselor recommended the applicant be recycled to another company. He concurred with the counseling. e. On 27 September 1984, a U.S. Army Reserve Liaison Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) also counseled the applicant and recommended he be recycled for APFT failure. The applicant concurred with the counseling. f. On 2 October 1984, the applicant's counselor stated that he [applicant] failed the push-up portion of the APFT for the 4th time. The counselor and the Reserve Liaison NCO both felt that a recycle was in order and now he was referring the applicant to the company commander for further counseling. The applicant nonconcurred with the counseling and stated he did not wish to be recycled. He added he wanted to further his education and go to school in the spring, which he could not do if he was recycled. g. On 4 October 1984, he was counseled for refusing to be recycled. The applicant nonconcurred with the counseling and stated he refused to be recycled because of the financial burden. h. On 4 October 1984, he was counseled by the commander who stated the applicant failed to show satisfactory progress in his level of physical fitness during the past five weeks. He said it is doubtful the applicant would meet the standards to pass advance individual training; therefore, he recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of the Trainee Discharge Program. 4. On 4 October 1984, the commander recommended the applicant's discharge from the Army under the provisions of the Trainee Discharge Program. He cites the applicant's inability to achieve the minimum standard on the APFT as the basis for the discharge action. 5. On 4 October 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge action. He stated he did not: desire to make a statement or submit a rebuttal in his behalf; a separation medical examination; or to consult with military or civilian counsel. 6. On 7 October 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, Entry Level Performance and Conduct, and directed the applicant's discharge under the Trainee Discharge Program. 7. On 12 October 1984, he was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows his character of service as "uncharacterized." He was credited with completing 1 month and 23 days of total active service with 2 months and 4 days shown as prior active service. 8. The applicant provides five supporting statements from friends and a family member attesting to his loyalty and dependability. One author states he has always been impressed with how everyone in the neighborhood knew the applicant and always spoke admirably about him and his willingness to help anyone in need. Another author states he has known the applicant for decades and found him to be professional, honorable, respectful, and polite. Another author states he considers himself lucky to have known the applicant for as long as he has. A family member states the applicant is more of a dad to him than an uncle and the applicant has more influence on him than anyone else has in his life. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 11 provides for the separation of Soldiers in an entry-level status (less than 180 days of creditable active service from the date of the initiation of the separation action) who have demonstrated they are not qualified for retention. Specifically cited as an example, which would render an individual not qualified for retention, were those Soldiers who "cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life." Individuals discharged under the provisions of chapter 11 received an "entry level performance and conduct" statement as the narrative reason for their separation. The service of these Soldiers was uncharacterized. b. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. c. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 2. The record further shows he had less than 180 days of creditable active service at the time of initiation of the separation; therefore, he received an entry-level separation and his service was uncharacterized. 3. An uncharacterized discharge is not a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003810 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003810 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2