ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  28 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190005342


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to 
either an under honorable conditions (general) discharge or an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 20 March 2019
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the 
period ending on 30 October 1997

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S.  
Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); 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 she was at Fort Jackson, SC, when her drill sergeant used his 
right pointer finger and thumb and held it against his head like a gun, while glaring at 
her in front of the platoon, and fired it.  She reported the incident to the staff sergeant on 
duty and the staff sergeant informed the first sergeant.  Afterwards, the drill sergeant 
stated that I would no longer attempt to qualify with my rifle.  Within a week she was 
discharged against her will.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 August 1997.  

4.  The applicant was counseled on at least thirteen separate occasions between 
29 August and 20 October 1997.  Her DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Forms) 
show she was counseled for the following:

*	basic combat training requirements (29 August 1997)
*	failure to meet the minimum standards for the diagnostic physical readiness test 
(30 August 1997)
*	failure to meet the minimum standards for basic rifle military (BRM) period IV 
(21 September 1997)
*	failure to meet the minimum standards of BRM period IV (22 September 1997)
*	failure to meet the minimum standards of BRM period V (24 September 1997)
*	failure to meet the minimum standards of BRM period V (25 September 1997)
*	failure to meet the minimum standards of BRM period (27 September 1997)
*	overall performance during education outreach program (EOP) phase II 
(29 September 1997)
*	failure to meet the minimum standards of BRM period (2 October 1997)
*	failure to qualify with the M-16A2 Rifle (2 October 1997)
*	missing BRM periods 7 and 8 (15 October 1997)
*	lack of motivation on qualification range (20 October 1997)
*	failure to qualify with the M-16A2 Rifle (20 October 1997)

5.  The applicant was notified that she was being recommended for discharge under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), 
Chapter 11.  Her commander cited her failure to adapt as the basis for his 
recommendation.  

6.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum on or about  
23 October 1997.  After consulting with counsel, she elected to submit a statement in 
her own behalf.  However, there is no evidence that the statement was submitted.

7.  The applicant's commander formally recommended her separation under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, on 23 October 1997.  

8.  The separation authority approved the recommended discharge on 25 October 1997 
and directed that her service be uncharacterized.

9.  The applicant was discharged on 30 October 1997, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, due to entry level status and performance.  She 
completed 2 months and 11 days of net active service this period.  Her DD Form 214 
confirmed her service was uncharacterized.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, in affect at that time, set forth the policies, standards, 
and procedures to insure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for 
the orderly administrative separation of enlisted members for a variety of reasons.

11.  Soldiers are considered to be in an entry-level status when they are within their first 
180 days of active duty service.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was in an 
entry-level status at the time of her separation.  



BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge 
upgrade requests.  The Board considered the applicant’s statement, her record and 
length of service, the record of counselling and the reason for her separation.  The 
Board found the applicant was in an entry level status and found no additional 
supporting documents for her statement; the applicant provided none.  The Board 
determined, based on a preponderance of evidence, that the character of service the 
applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust.

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not warranted.


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 three 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 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 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.

   a.  Paragraph 3-7a states that 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.
   
   b.  Paragraph 3-7b states that 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.

   c.  Chapter 11 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of 
personnel due to unsatisfactory performance or conduct, or both, while in an entry level 
status.  This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they 
were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to 
military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline for 
military service, or they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory 
continued service.  The separation policy applied to Soldiers who could not meet the 
minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of 
aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline.  The regulation required an uncharacterized 
description of service for separation under this chapter.

	d.  Separation under Chapter 11 applied to Soldiers who were in an entry level status 
and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, completed no more than 
180 days of continuous active duty and demonstrated that they could not or would not 
adapt socially or emotionally to military life.




ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190005342

4

1