ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  2 August 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180002816


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  upgrade of her entry level status discharge to general, under honorable conditions discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* DD Form 293 (Application For the Review of Discharge From the Armed Forces of the United States)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 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 she wants clarification of her discharge to be able to be listed as a veteran on her license and not have to carry her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) around for discounts.  She was told she was a veteran but it is difficult to keep up with the copy of her DD Form 214.

3.  A review of the applicant’s service records shows:

	a.  She enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 10 September 1986.  She was assigned to Fort Jackson, SC for training.

	b.  During her second week of training the applicant went on sick call.  Her DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standard Board (EPSBD) Proceedings) dated 1 October 1986 shows she was a 21-year old female in her second week of basic training with a history of skin problems in the 1970s.  This issue was recurring during the past two weeks while in the military.  She was seen at the Moncrief Army Community Hospital and referred to the dermatology specialist.  Her physical evaluation revealed she had Pruritus, skin color and discomfort; the findings were Erythema, lichenification, excoriations, hypo and hyperpigmentation in the v-neck, arms and wrists.  The dermatology specialist recommended that the applicant be separated as a result of not meeting the requirements of Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) chapter 2, paragraph 2-35b.

	c.  On 1 October 1986, the applicant was informed of the medical findings.  She acknowledged she understood that legal advice of an attorney employed by the Army was available to her and that she could consult with civilian counsel at her own expense.  She further acknowledged she understood she could request to be discharged from the Army without delay or request retention on active duty.  After counseling the applicant disagreed with the medical findings and requested her case be returned to the medical approving authority for reconsideration.  

	d.  On 2 October 1986, she submitted a statement, that shows she disagreed with the findings because she:

* was never given any medication
* was not bothered by her skin and her skin was not irritated
* was requested to go to sick call; if she had known she would have never gone to sick call
* felt that if she can put up with her skin; she should have been allowed to stay in because it was what she really wanted

	e.  On 6 October 1986, the Deputy Commander for Clinical Services considered her appeal.  The original findings and recommendations were affirmed. 

	f.  On 8 October 1986, the separation authority concurred with the medical professionals and authorized an entry level separation under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11 by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.

	g.  On 8 October 1986, Headquarters, United States Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, SC published Order 195-145 ordering her reassignment to the U.S. Army Transition Point for separation processing effective 16 October 1986.

	h.  On 16 October 1986, the applicant was discharged from active duty.  Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) paragraph 5-11.  The narrative reason for separation shows “DID NOT MEET PROCUREMENT MEDICAL FITNESS STANDARDS – NO DISABILITY” and her service was characterized as entry level status.  She completed 1 month, and 7 days of net active service.  

	i.  There is no evidence the applicant has applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

	j.  The applicant petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for a correction of her military records, to show she was physically fit for enlistment in the Regular Army (RA), and, in effect, that her assigned reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be upgraded.  After considering her case on 13 April 1988, the Board denied her request.

4.  By regulation Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty for initial entry training, will be separated.  Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was-identified by appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the soldier's initial, entrance on active duty for RA.  The Army considers this an entry-level separation if processing is initiated while a member is in an entry-level status.  

	a.  A member's service is under review during the first 180 days of continuous active military service.  When separated within the first 180 days, service is usually not characterized unless the circumstances of the separation warrant a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  An honorable characterization may be issued only if the service clearly warrants that characterization by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military duty and is approved by the Secretary of the Army.  A general characterization of service is not authorized in entry level status.

	b.  In all other circumstances, an uncharacterized separation is issued regardless of the reason for separation.  An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative; it is not derogatory.  It simply means the Soldier did not serve on active duty long enough for his or her service to be rated.  The characterization of service she received was in compliance with the governing regulation.  

5.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicants’ petition in her service record in accordance with published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief.  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.  As such, her DD Form 214 properly shows her service as uncharacterized.

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.

	_______X__________


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.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) states 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.

	b.  An entry level status separation, is a separation that will be described as an entry level separation with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a soldier is in entry level status.

	c.  Paragraph 5-11 states, Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty for initial entry training, will be separated.  Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was-identified by appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the soldier's initial, entrance on active duty for RA.  The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty service prior to the initiation of separation action.

3.  Army Regulation 40-501, (Standards of Medical Fitness) chapter 2, paragraph 2-35b (Skin and Cellular Tissues), of the version in effect at time, states that atopic dermatitis is a cause for rejection for enlistment.

4.  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. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180002816


4


1