ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190007603 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 5 March 1993, to show his service was characterized as honorable. 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 27 March 2019 * DD Forms 214, for the periods ending 5 March 1993 and 15 July 1999 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 the character of his service was honorable and comparable to the character of service of his fellow Soldier. He believes his service should be characterized as honorable. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 October 1992. He entered active duty at Fort Benning, Georgia, for the purpose of attending Infantry One Station Unit Training (OSUT) 4. The applicant was counseled on at least ten separate occasions between 28 October 1992 and 16 February 1993. The DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Forms) show he was counseled for offenses including but not limited to: * disobeying a lawful order * showing lack of discipline * failing to follow instructions * being a hindrance to the platoon's standards * displaying lack of motivation and apathetic attitude * being late for formation * disrupting training * leaving the designated training area * possessing tobacco products * lying to a noncommissioned officer (NCO) * disrespecting an NCO * violating company policy * malingering to avoid training * failing to adapt to the military * displaying a lack of self-discipline * displaying a poor attitude 5. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 14 November 1992, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to obey a lawful order to shave, on or about 7 November 1992. 6. The applicant accepted NJP on 16 February 1993, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for wrongfully and unlawfully having in his possession a lock- blade knife, on or about 10 February 1993. 7. The applicant's commander notified the applicant on 16 February 1993 that he was initiating actions to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 11, due to entry level status. His commander cited a noted disregard for authority and an inability to adapt to military standards and discipline as the basis for his recommendation. 8. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum on 16 February 1993. He waived consultation with counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 9. The applicant's commander formally recommended his separation on 16 February 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11. The separation authority approved the recommended discharge on 26 February 1993 and noted that the applicant had no aptitude for service in the U.S. Armed Forces and should not be allowed to ever again enlist because he had no potential for service. 10. The applicant was discharged from the Regular Army on 5 March 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, due to entry level status. He completed 4 months and 21 days of net active service this period. His DD Form 214 confirms he did not complete OSUT, was not awarded a military occupational specialty, and his service was uncharacterized. 11. The applicant enlisted in the Michigan Army National Guard on 11 September 1998. He entered active duty on 11 February 1999, at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for the purpose of attaining qualification in an unspecified military occupational specialty. 12. The applicant provides a second DD Form 214, covering a period of active duty training from 11 February 1999 through 15 July 1999. This DD Form 214 shows he completed 5 months and 5 days of net active service but was released from active duty training and discharged from the Reserve of the Army, due to misconduct, and returned to the ARNG. This DD Form 214 also shows he was not awarded a military occupational specialty and his service was uncharacterized. He was subsequently issued a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) reflecting his service as a member ARNG. 13. 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. 14. 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 still in an entry-level status at the time of his separation. As a result, his service was appropriately described as "uncharacterized," in accordance with governing regulations. 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, the length of his service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Boar found that he failed to complete initial training and while in an entry level status was discharged for misconduct. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service he 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. X CHAIRPERSON 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.