ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


		BOARD DATE:  2 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170019865


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  in effect, upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to 
honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed 
Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records:  
Claims Incident Thereto).  However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2.  The applicant states they told him his discharge would change to honorable in 
6 months (apparently implying the Army would automatically upgrade his character of 
service); this was because his unit was moving.  He was unable to reach his point of 
contact and the Army did not upgrade his discharge.  After 8 months, his unit told him 
they had no record of him; they also claimed they had nothing to do with his discharge.  
In 1995 or 1996, he received a certificate that said, "Congratulations" and it reflected an 
honorable discharge; this is why he thought his character of service had changed.  He 
has been a civil servant for over 17 years, with 8 years in military mental health.  He is a 
disabled Veteran and VA has awarded him a 40 percent disability rating.

3.  The applicant provides a VA letter, dated 21 August 2017, which essentially shows a 
summary of the applicant's VA benefits; his character of service is listed as "under 
honorable conditions" for active duty from 18 March to 17 September 1993.  It further 
states he has one or more service-connected disabilities and his combined disability 
rating is 40 percent.

4.  The applicant's service records show:
	a.  He enlisted into the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 30 November 1992.  On 
18 March 1993, he was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT); his orders 
directed him to proceed to Fort Leonard Wood, MO for basic combat training (BCT).  

	b.  On or about 29 May 1993, he completed BCT and orders reassigned him to Fort 
Sam Houston (FSH), TX for advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational 
specialty (MOS) 91D (Operating Room Specialist).  

	c.  On 29 July 1993, the applicant's class advisor and program director both 
recommended the applicant's relief from the course because he had failed three interim 
crucial examinations.  On 5 August 1993, the Commandant's representative approved 
the recommendation.  On 12 August 1993, a noncommissioned officer counseled the 
applicant, informing him he had been dropped from the 91D course.

	d.  On 24 August 1993, the applicant's AIT commander signed a memorandum 
affirming he had interviewed the applicant and found him to be trainable; the 
commander recommended placement in a second MOS.

	e.  On 1 September 1993, an FSH officer counseled the applicant as to his AIT 
commander's intent to initiate separation action under the provisions of chapter 
11 (Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct), Army Regulation (AR) 
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  The reasons were:  there were 
no second MOS' available within the applicant's USAR unit; his USAR unit was 
disbanding; and the applicant had failed his first MOS (91D).  The applicant concurred.

	f.  On 9 September 1993, the applicant's AIT commander notified him via 
memorandum of his intent to separate him under chapter 11, AR 635-200 due to the 
applicant's inability to complete MOS training and because his USAR unit was closing 
down; as a result, he was not eligible to train in another MOS.  Also on 9 September 
1993, the applicant acknowledged that, although his chain of command afforded him the 
opportunity to consult with counsel, he declined; in addition, he affirmed he understood 
he would receive an uncharacterized discharge and did not intend to submit statements 
in his own behalf.

	f.  In his recommendation to the separation authority, the applicant's AIT commander 
stated the applicant lacked the motivation and maturity to become a productive Soldier; 
he showed no training potential and was unlikely to be rehabilitated or to develop into a 
satisfactory member of the Army.

	g.  On or about 13 September 1993, the separation authority approved the 
commander's recommendation.  He directed the applicant not be transferred into the 
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and, because this was an entry-level separation, the 
applicant would not be furnished a discharge certificate.  Orders discharged the 
applicant from the USAR, effective 17 September 1993.  His DD Form 214 showed he 
completed 6 months of net active service.  His type of separation was "Discharge"; his 
character of service was "Uncharacterized"; and the narrative reason for separation was 
"Entry Level Status."  He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service 
Medal and a marksmanship qualification badge.

	h.  On 9 January, and again on 15 March 1994, the applicant's USAR unit sent the 
applicant memoranda of instruction, via return-receipt-requested mail, advising him that, 
on 8 and 9 January, and again on 12 and 13 March 1994, respectively, he had missed 
scheduled a multiple unit training assemblies (MUTA).  As a result, he had accumulated 
4 periods of unexcused absences for each of those MUTA.  The memorandum further 
advised him that nine unexcused absences within a 1-year period would cause his unit 
to declare him as an unsatisfactory participant and to transfer him to the IRR.  The 
applicant's signature was on both return-mail receipts, reflecting he had received the 
two memoranda.

	i.  The web-based Soldier Management System (SMS), maintained by the U.S. Army 
Human Resources Command (HRC), shows:

*	17 September 1993 – involuntary discharge for unsatisfactory entry-level 
status performance or conduct
*	2 February 1994 – promotion to private first class (PFC)/E-3
*	9 March 1999 – involuntary discharge due to expiration of USAR service 
obligation

5.  AR 635-200, as was in effect at the time, defined policies for enlisted administrative 
separations.  

	a.  Entry-level Soldiers were to be separated under chapter 11 when they 
demonstrated unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct.  The regulation specified a 
Soldier separated under this provision had to have demonstrated they were not qualified 
for retention because they were unable to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; 
could not meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training 
because of a lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline; or had character or 
behavior disorders.

	b.  The regulation defined entry-level status as that period within the first 180 days of 
continuous active duty; for USAR Soldiers on continuous IADT, the 180 days began at 
the start of training.  Soldiers were required to receive an uncharacterized character of 
service when separated in an entry-level status.  

	c.  Army gave specific policy guidance for USAR Soldiers who, while on IADT, were 
separated for entry-level performance and conduct.

		(1)  A USAR Soldier who had successfully completed BCT was to be released 
from active duty (REFRAD), not discharged; an exception was made when the 
separation authority clearly determined the Soldier had no potential for useful service 
under full mobilization conditions.

		(2)  Before reaching such a determination, the separation authority was to 
consider such factors as whether an additional 2 or more years might have a maturing 
effect on the Soldier.  The fact he/she was separated due to entry-level performance 
and conduct was, by itself, not a sufficient reason to warrant discharge, rather than 
REFRAD.

6.  The applicant states he thought his character of service had been upgraded because 
he received a certificate reflecting an honorable character of service and the VA letter 
showed "under honorable conditions."  He noted his 17 years as a civil servant, 8 of 
which were spent in military mental health.  

	a.  His record shows, after successfully completing BCT, he was released from his 
91D AIT course because he failed three crucial examinations.  His AIT commander 
initially stated the applicant was trainable and recommended placement in a second 
MOS.  However, when it became apparent the applicant's USAR unit was closing down 
and, as a result, the applicant was ineligible for training in another MOS, the AIT 
commander recommended chapter 11 separation.

	b.  In his separation recommendation to the separation authority, the applicant's AIT 
commander stated the applicant lacked the motivation and maturity to become a 
productive Soldier; he showed no training potential and was unlikely to be rehabilitated 
or to develop into a satisfactory member of the Army.  The separation authority directed 
the applicant's discharge, vice REFRAD.

	c.  Despite his 17 September 1993 discharge from the USAR, both the applicant's 
USAR unit and HRC generated documentation indicating the applicant retained 
membership in the USAR until 9 March 1999.

7.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his 
service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, 
or clemency.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is 
insufficient evidence to grant relief.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully 
considered.  The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an 
entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated 
while a Soldier is in entry-level status.  He remained in entry level status due to the fact 
he did not complete initial entry training to obtain a MOS.  As such, his characterization 
of service properly shows uncharacterized.

2.  An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be 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.  As a result, there 
is no basis for granting the applicant's request.  

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	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.


	  
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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):  Not applicable.




REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, USC, 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 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.  

2.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of 
enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 1-36 (Mobilization Asset Transfer Program).  USAR Soldiers who had 
completed BCT and were separated with an uncharacterized character of service under 
the provisions of chapter 11 were to be transferred to the IRR unless they clearly had no 
potential for useful service under conditions of full mobilization.  Before making a "no 
potential" determination, the separation authority had to give due consideration to all 
pertinent factors; this included the positive motivation a full mobilization might have and 
the probable maturing effect of 2 or more years in age.  The fact that a Soldier was 
being separated from active duty due to entry-level performance was not sufficient by 
itself to warrant finding of "no potential."

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a stated an honorable discharge was separation with honor.  
Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was appropriate when the quality of the 
Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of 
duty, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be 
inappropriate.  Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to consider 
the extent thereof, as well as the seriousness of the offense.  An honorable discharge 
could be furnished when disqualifying entries in the Soldier's military record was 
outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time.  It 
was the pattern of behavior, and not the isolated instance, which commanders should 
consider as the governing factor.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army 
under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military 
record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 
discharge.

	d.  	Paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations).  A separation was an entry-level 
status separation with uncharacterized service when commanders initiated processing 
while the Soldier was in an entry-level status (i.e. the first 180 days of continuous active 
duty; for USAR Soldiers on continuous IADT, the 180 days begins at the start of 
training).  

	e.  Chapter 11 (Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct) provided that entry-
level Soldiers were to be separated when they demonstrated unsatisfactory 
performance and/or conduct, as evidenced by an inability, a lack of reasonable effort, or 
a failure to adapt to the military environment.  The regulation specified a Soldier 
separated under this provision demonstrated they were not qualified for retention 
because they were unable to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; could not meet 
minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of a lack 
of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline; or had character or behavior disorders.  
Separations under this chapter were to be listed as uncharacterized.

3.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal 
sentence.  BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial.  
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-
martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may 
be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.  This guidance does not mandate 
relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their 
equitable relief authority.  In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, 
injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, 
external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, 
mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a 
relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment.  Changes to the 
narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely 
on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, 
retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that 
might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or 
had the upgraded service characterization.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170019865

6

1