BOARD DATE: 20 April 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180014663 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests an upgrade of the character of service on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from “other than honorable,” in effect “uncharacterized,” to general or honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Letter (1 page) 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 was discharged due to a leg injury with an “other than honorable [uncharacterized]” discharge. Currently she has a 50 percent service- connected disability rating from the VA for this injury. She believes her discharge should be upgraded to reflect honorable service, because she never had a problem when she served. She also states she was advised that she could be considered for reenlistment after 24 months. 3. On 9 March 2010, she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years and 25 weeks. She did not complete initial entry training nor was she awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS). 4. Developmental Counseling Forms, dated between May and June 2010, show the applicant was counseled for various reasons to include failing Army training that was a requirement for graduation, unsatisfactory performance and misconduct, and for failure to adapt to the military. Initially, the recommendation was that she restart or be separated under chapter 11. 5. A DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave) shows the applicant went on convalescent leave from 7 May through 5 June 2010. 6. A Memorandum for Record, subject: Statement of [Applicant’s] Medical Condition, dated 10 June 2010, from Orthopedic Services, Headquarters U.S. Army Medical Department Activities, shows she had pateliofemoral left knee pain which would required 4-6 months of physical therapy. “This Soldier does not want to be in the Army or be placed in the PTRP.” “PVT [Applicant’s name] does not want to pursue a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). She is requesting an administrative separation IAW [in accordance with] AR 635-200, chapter 5-17.” 7. A Development Counseling Form, dated 11 June 2010, shows she received an injury during week one of basic training and could not begin training. She had been on numerous appointments and had to undergo exploratory surgery to see if her knee could be fixed. It was determined that she could not train and required at least 4 months of rehabilitation, therefore, she was being recommended for separation under AR 635-200, Chap 5-17. She was also advised that while pending separation it was imperative that she adhered to all Army and company policies. Failure to comply with the rules would result in her separation process being delayed. 8. In a statement, dated 11 June 2010, the applicant indicated, in effect, that she fell off the top bunk trying to get ready for physical training. Twice she tried to advise her drill sergeants of her injury and she was told to suck it up. On the third day she could barely run and requested to go to the doctor. The drill sergeant asked to see her injury, but she could not pull up her pant leg, because her leg was so swollen. He said if he could not see it, he did not believe it. When Monday came around, she fell out from running, she felt something pull in her leg and that is when they let her go to the doctor. She went to the doctor every Tuesday after that and she had surgery on 22 April 2010. She went on convalescent leave expecting to get better, but she did not. They offered her an MEB, but she did not take it, because she could not come back to the Army. That’s why she took the discharge under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17. 9. On 17 June 2010, the applicant's commander officially notified her that he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17 (Other Designated Physical or Mental Conditions) with an uncharacterized discharge. The commander stated the reason for his proposed separation action was the applicant had patellofemoral left knee pain. She had no desire to be placed in the PTRP [Physical Training and Rehabilitation Program] and she did not want to be in the Army. 10. The applicant acknowledged notification, she consulted with counsel, and declined to submit a statement in her own behalf. 11. The applicant's immediate commander recommended that she be separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17. The applicant intermediate commander recommended approval with a general discharge. 12. On 28 June 2010, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the issuance of an Uncharacterized Discharge. 13. On 2 July 2010, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17. She completed 3 months and 24 days of active service. The reason for discharge is shown on her DD Form 214 as "PHYSICAL CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY." No authorized awards are MOS are listed. 14. On 17 January 2018, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed her discharge and found it proper and equitable. The ADRB voted to deny her a change in the character of service and the reason for discharge. 15. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, provides commanders with the authority to approve separations on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability and excluding those personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards and those diagnosed with a personality disorder. A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition. 16. The applicant provides a VA Rating Letter, one page, showing she was awarded a 50 percent (%) service-connected disability rating. The condition for which she received this rating is not listed on the document provided. She contends her uncharacterized discharge should be upgraded to reflect honorable service based on this VA rating. However, her service was uncharacterized, because she had completed less than 180 days of continuous active service when her discharge action was initiated. AR 635-200, paragraph 5-1, states a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded an uncharacterized description of service if in an entry-level status (ELS), which is the first 180 days of continuous active service. 17. Additionally, award of a VA service-connected disability rating is not, in and of itself, evidence of an error in an Army decision. The VA makes disability determinations based on its own statutory authority. 18. Regarding her contentions that she had no problems when she served and she was advised that she could be considered for reenlistment after 24 months. The available evidence shows she did have problems adjusting to military service based on some counseling that she received. However, this has no bearing on her ability to reenlist, if she meets the requirements, physically and otherwise. Local recruiters are best qualified to make those determinations. 19. She completed 3 months and 24 days of her 3 year and 25 week enlistment obligation. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, her VA rating, and her service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 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, her military service, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. In addition, the Board considered her available medical records, the VA document provided by the applicant, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade request. However, the Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for an upgrade. 2. 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. 3. 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. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, provides commanders with the authority to approve separations on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability and excluding those personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards and those diagnosed with a personality disorder. A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition. This regulation also provides: a. An uncharacterized separation is an ELS. A separation will be described as an entry level separation if processing is initiated while a member is in an ELS, except when characterization under other than honorable condition is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case or when The Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. For RA Soldiers, ELS is the first 180 days of continuous active duty or the first 180 days of continuous active service following a break in service of more than 92 days of active military service. 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization. 3. Title 38, United States Code, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the Army not separating the individual for physical unfitness. An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180014663 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180014663 6 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180014663 5