ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180000752 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration to: * correct the enlistment date on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show 23 June 1980 * change his narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 to show 2-year training discharge * change his Reenlistment (RE) Code to RE-1 * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) * DD Form 214, ending 10 September 1981 * Self-Authored Statement, dated 29 November 2017 * Congressional Memo, Congresswoman X, dated 7 March 2018, with Constituent Authorization Form FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070007747 on 27 November 2007. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he noticed an error on his DD Form 214, period ending 10 September 1981. He states the document shows his enlistment date as 10 July 1981 instead of the date of his original orders, which was 23 June 1980. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214. He also provides: a. A self-authored statement, detailing his understanding of the Split-Option Army Reserve Program. The applicant states, he started in a Split-Option Army Reserve Program where he entered active duty for training for basic training during the summer of 1980 after the completion of his sophomore year of high school. Upon completion of basic training, he returned home to attend his junior year of high school. The following summer, he entered active duty for training again to complete his Advanced Individual Training (AIT) to obtain his military occupational specialty (MOS). Within his statement, the applicant also detailed the events that led up to his discharge. He explains: (1) He had two encounters with one of his drill sergeants while attending AIT at Fort Jackson, SC, resulting in him receiving an Article 15 for failing to show up at the designated time. The applicant also mentioned the previous Article 15s received while in basic training. He made an agreement with his senior officer, while at AIT, in which he was offered an option to take a two-year training discharge to take time off to reconsider making the Army his career. (2) His senior officer recommended the option would be in his best interest and went so far as to give him an honorable discharge on the condition that he would agree to not get into any more trouble. Just days away from completing AIT, he was called to the orderly room to sign a document that was supposed to be signed during his last session with his senior officer, but was overlooked. He states he went ahead and signed the document in an effort to ensure he would not jeopardize his chances of getting back home on schedule. b. Congressional Memo from Congresswoman MZB, requesting assistance to resolve the enlistment date issue on behalf of the applicant. She states the correction of the enlistment date on the applicant’s DD Form 214 may qualify the applicant for veteran’s benefits. The Congresswoman requests this case receive an expedited determination, to help resolve personal hardship of which veterans benefits may assist if the applicant is entitled. The Congressional Memo also includes a Constituent Authorization signed by the applicant, allowing the Department of the Army to provide the Congresswoman’s office with information that may be confidential regarding his case. The authorization was specifically given to correct his military record to avail the applicant of veterans benefits. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) under the alternate training program, on 23 June 1980, for six years. He signed and dated the Alternate Training Program Addendum provided with his enlistment agreement on 23 June 1980. b. The addendum detailed the applicant would enter initial active duty for training (IADT) to undergo and complete basic training at an active military installation. Upon completion, the applicant would be released from active duty for training (ADT) and be permitted to return to civilian status and resume training with his Army Reserve unit in a paid drill status. Within one year of the last day of completion of basic training and separation from ADT, the applicant was required to enter ADT again to successfully complete AIT requirements, to become qualified in an MOS. c. The applicant entered IADT for basic training at Fort Knox, KY on 27 June 1980. While in basic training, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 on/for: * 15 July 1980, disrespectful in language toward his noncommissioned officer who was in the execution of his office * 30 July 1980, suspension of forfeiture of pay (from 15 July 1980 NJP) was vacated due to misconduct d. The applicant successfully completed basic training, was released from ADT on 21 August 1980, and returned to his traditional drilling status. At the time of release, he was issued a DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report). This form shows in: * Item 6 (Effective Date of Entry on Active Duty) shows he entered ADT on 27 June 1980 * Item 9 (Date Tour of Duty Terminated) shows he ended this period of ADT on 21 August 1980. e. IADT Order Number 101-34, dated 2 June 1980, issued by Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Sub-Station, Guam, ordered the applicant to IADT for AIT at Fort Jackson, SC. He entered active duty on 10 July 1981. f. While at AIT, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 on 21 July 1981 for absenting himself from his required place of duty. There is no recorded imposed punishment in Item 5 of the DA Form 2627, but the applicant indicated he did not appeal the punishment imposed. g. The applicant’s record is void of documentation related to his trainee discharge, However, Orders 191-106, dated 8 September 1981, issued by Headquarters, US Army Western Command, Fort Shafter, HI, discharged the applicant from active duty on 10 September 1981. h. He was honorably discharged from active duty on 10 September 1981. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 months and 1 day of active service. It also shows in: * item 12a (Date Entered Active Duty This Period) - 10 July 1981 * item 12d (Total prior Active Service) 1 month and 23 days * item 25 (Separation Authority) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-33f(2) * item 26 (Separation Authority) JET * item 27 (RE Code) 3 * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) Marginal or Nonproductive” i. In ABCMR Docket Number AR20070007747, dated 27 November 2007 regarding the applicant’s discharge, he contended: (1) The narrative reason should reflect the he was placed on a two-year training discharge with a reenlistment/entry code (RE Code) of “1”. (2) He was, in effect, seeking the Board’s assistance in correcting the injustice because he was led to believe that he could return back to the Army so long as the two year period (referenced from his enlistment agreement) had not expired. As stated in the Record of Proceedings (ROP) for this case, the applicant was told he could not return due to the RE Code on his DD Form 214. (3) The Board assessed and concluded, the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of the case was insufficient as a basis for correction of the applicant’s records. The Board denied the applicant’s request for relief. 5. By regulation (AR 15-185 (ABCMR)), an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. 6. By regulation (AR 635-200), the trainee discharge program provided for the separation of service members who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive Soldiers or who failed to respond to formal counseling. The regulation essentially required that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual training, on the job, or service school training prior to award of a MOS and must not have completed more than 179 days of active duty on their current enlistment by the date of separation. The regulation provided that Soldiers could be separated when they had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention due to failure to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; could not meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline; or had demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. a. A DD Form 220 will be prepared for Soldiers enlisted under the US Army Reserve Split Training Program and the Army National Guard US (ARNGUS) Alternate Training Program. This form is completed when Soldiers complete the basic combat training portion. The applicant served 56 days of initial active duty for basic training. He was not eligible to receive a DD Form 214. b. A DD Form 214 will be prepared for Soldiers completing 90 days or more of continuous active duty for training, full-time National Guard duty, or active duty support. 7. By regulation (AR 601-210 (Personnel Procurement Regular Army Enlistment Program)) Table 4-11, provides, RE-1 applies to persons who were fully qualified when last separated. RE-3 applies to persons who are not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. 8. By regulation (AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators) provides, the regulatory authority for Soldiers discharged under the separation reason of “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) Marginal or nonproductive” will receive the separation program designator of “JET.” The RE Code associated with this Separation Code is RE-3. His DD Form reflects RE-3. 9. By regulation (AR 635-5 (Personnel Separation Documents)), the separation authority, separation program designator, and narrative reason for separation will be entered as provided in AR 635-5-1. a. Item 12a, enter the first day of the last immediate reenlistment for which a DD Form 214 was not issued (applicable to enlisted members discharged for immediate reenlistment). b. Item 27, in part, states, enter “NA” for ARNGUS or USAR members released after serving on ADT or ARNG after serving on FTTD. For members discharged for cause (for example under the Trainee Discharge Program or for medical reasons), give the proper RE code. c. Item 28, enter the reason for separation (shown in AR 635-5-1) based on the regulatory or statutory authority. For personnel ordered to ADT and FTTD by self-terminating orders, show the reason as “Completion of period of ADT or FTTD”, as appropriate. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that it could make a fair and equitable decision without a personal appearance from the applicant. Additionally, the Board found that relief was not warranted. Based upon the documentary evidence provided by the applicant and found within the applicant’s military service record, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to show that an error or injustice existed which would warrant making a change to the applicant’s record. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. AR 601-210, Table 4-11, provides, RE Code RE-1 applies to persons who were fully qualified when last separated. RE Code RE-3 applies to persons who are not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. 3. AR 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-33 of this regulation, in effect at the time, governed the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP). a. Paragraph 5-33a, provides, this program provided for the separation of service members who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive Soldiers or who failed to respond to formal counseling. The regulation essentially required that the service member must have voluntary enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual training, on the job, or service school training prior to award of a MOS and must not have completed more than 179 days of active duty on their current enlistment by the date of separation. The regulation provided that Soldiers could be separated when they had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention due to failure to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; could not meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline; or had demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. b. Paragraph 5-33f(2) provides, members who have not completed basic training or 8 weeks of one station unit training will be discharged. Members who the separation authority determines, for some specific reason, have no potential for useful service under conditions of full mobilization will be discharged, however, before making a decision to discharge the member, the separation authority will give due consideration to the gravity of the situation requiring full mobilization and the positive motivation such condition may well have on these members, also, the probable maturing effect of an additional two or more years in age. c. Paragraph 6-12 provides, the separation authority, separation program designator, and narrative reason for separation will be entered as provided in AR 635-5-1. 4. AR 635-5 provides, a. Paragraph 1-4 provides, a DD Form 214 will be prepared for all personnel completing 90 days or more of continuous ADT, full-time training duty, or active duty support. After completing IADT which resulted in the award of an MOS even though the active duty was less than 90 days. This includes completion of AIT under the Army National Guard United States or USAR Split Training Program. b. Table 2-1 outlines the required instructions to prepare a DD Form 214. As it Relates to Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), it provides in part, enter the narrative reason for separation as shown in AR 635-5-1 based on the regulatory or other authority. For personnel ordered to ADT on self-terminating orders, show the reason as “Completion of period of ADT as appropriate.” c. Paragraph 2-13 provides, a DD Form 220 will be prepared for Soldiers enlisted under the US Army Reserve Split Training Program and the Army National Guard US Alternate Training Program. This form is completed when Soldiers complete the basic training portion. 5. AR 635-5-1, Appendix, provides, the regulatory authority for Soldiers discharged under the separation reason of “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) Marginal or nonproductive” will receive the separation program designator of “JET.” 6. AR 15-185 states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 7. 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 based on 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180000752 6 1