IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 May 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220000139 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * her uncharacterized discharge be changed to honorable * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Discharge Order * Active Duty Report * Order to Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT) * IADT Reservation * Enlistment * Medical Documentation * Masters of Science Degree * Associate of Arts Degree * Nursing License * Letter from a Major (MAJ) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). 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, in effect: a. She would like her discharge to be characterized as honorable. She was suffering from a life-threatening illness, which resulted in her hospitalization. Her unit, at the time, repeatedly lost her paperwork and failed to correctly process any of her paperwork. b. Because her paperwork was not processed effectively, her discharge was less than favorable. She went to her leadership countless times to discuss her limitations after surgery and to have her paperwork corrected. c. She was a very young woman at the time and felt alone with no resources or knowledge to assist her. Not to mention, she was dealing with the physical, mental, and emotional implications of recovering from the surgery, downtime, and scarring. d. She is unable to receive any compensation and utilize her disabled veteran status because of the inaccurate paperwork. She has no records to validate her time as a veteran that served honorably. e. The correction, by the Board, would allow her to utilize the benefits she is entitled to and improve her quality of life. She would like an updated and official DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that validates her service to her country and she may receive adequate healthcare and compensation. f. As an African American woman, she has been struggling to get her paperwork completed and this has hindered her over the last decade or so and job prospects. 3. The applicant provides the following documents, not contained in her service record, for the Board's consideration: a. An Active-Duty Report, dated 17 August 1995, which shows the applicant was a member of the US Army Reserve (USAR). Her effective date of entry on active duty was 15 June 1995. The date she departed from her duty station to home was 17 August 1995. She completed basic training on 17 August 1995. b. Her advanced individual training (AIT) reservation, which shows she was going to AIT to become a Medical Supply Specialist. c. A medical document, dated 12 May 1996, which shows her pre-operation diagnosis as acute cholecystitis and her post-operation diagnosis was acute and chronic peritonitis. She had presented at the emergency room with increased right upper quadrant pain and fever. A laparoscopic camera was inserted through the trocar and cursory examination of the entire abdominal cavity revealed thin purulent matter throughout the peritoneal cavity mostly concentrated in the right and left paracolic gutters and in the pelvis. It became clear the appendix may have been secondarily inflamed by another disease process and not the primary source of the peritonitis. She therefore had an appendectomy. d. A certificate showing she received her Masters of Science in Cybersecurity and a certificate showing she received her Associate of Arts in Nursing. e. A document entitled NCLEX-RN Candidate Report, which shows she passed the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nursed on 18 December 2020. f. A letter from a MAJ, Commanding, dated 5 July 2021, which states, in effect: (1) The MAJ was in the USAR and had served for 23 years in the Signal and Acquisition Corps. She's known the applicant since 1990. They have been very good friend from high school to the present and have shared many life experiences together. (2) One of the life experiences was the desire to serve in the US military. The applicant showed interest before the MAJ did because she enlisted right after high school. The applicant was very excited and motivated in preparing for the physical and academic requirement for the service. She scored highly on the ASVAB and had all intentions to professionally serve for a number of years. (3) They communicated whenever possible at the onset of back training where the applicant shared her daily regimen. One observation the MAJ recalls was that the applicant was mentally prepared for the training and challenges and exerted herself to exceed standards. (4) The applicant succeeded in marksmanship training and demonstrated leadership abilities in her assignment as platoon leader. It was a few weeks before the end of basic training that she experienced a medical challenge that resulted in her need to undergo surgery. (5) The applicant was told she would be recycled and would be able to join with an upcoming cycle of new Soldiers in order to complete her training. Although distraught, she took time to complete the surgery and was awaiting word on when she could rejoin the next cycle. Instead of receiving this guidance the military discharged her. (6) The applicant was very disappointed as she mapped her future with the intent to serve her country. Shortly after that time, the MAJ enlisted and completed her training. She initially encouraged the applicant to try again, but she told the MAJ she was not given another opportunity. (7) Over the years, as the MAJ continued to service and later joined the officer corps, she knew the applicant would have served in a similar capacity. (8) The applicant exhibits the Army Corps values and has always demonstrated the selfless service that the military requires of its personnel. She still displays the commitment and endurance in her current profession that would have also benefited the US Army. (9) The MAJ feels feel the Army acted appropriately in their action to discharge the applicant with an uncharacterized characterization of service especially since she was never fully qualified in a military occupational specialty (MOS) and had not done anything that warranted the inability to fulfill her training and enlistment. The medical challenge the applicant underwent was not one that would have made her ineligible to perform her duties once she recovers. The applicant would have truly been an asset to the US Army and would have served with pride and dignity. 4. On 12 May 1995, the applicant, at the age of 19 years old, enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) for a period of 8 years. Her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows she went to active duty training on 15 June 1995 and was relieved from active duty on 17 August 1995. There is no indication she attended AIT. 5. Her Report of Medical Examination shows she had no medical issues and was qualified for enlistment. Her Report of Medical History shows she was in good health. 6. On 12 May 1995, orders were published ordering the applicant to IADT with a reporting date of 20 June 1996. On 17 August 1995, an Active Duty Report shows the applicant entered active duty on 15 June 1995 and departed to her home station on 17 August 1995. 7. On 5 September 1995, the applicant wrote a self-authored letter that states, in effect: a. The previous sever months had been trying ones for her. They went from losing a few family members, to being in and out of the hospital, to dealing with her step-father trying to commit suicide. b. She was writing because that summer she had been unable to attend drill with her unit because he was in Maryland taking care of her brothers and sisters. Her mother had to take an emergency leave out of the country. c. Her mother had returned and the applicant was making preparations to return to Philadelphia. Once she returned, she would be able to attend drills regularly. She also asked about getting a summer date to attend AIT. She asked her unit to contact her with her AIT information. d. She apologized for her absences but they were due to circumstances beyond her control. 8. On 16 December 1995, a Personnel Action was completed promoting the applicant to Private/E-2 (PV2) effective 16 December 1995. 9. The applicant's service records contained medical documentation, which shows on: * 12 May 1996, the applicant was seen in the emergency room for right upper quadrant pain * 12 May 1996, the pre-operation and post-operation information provided by the applicant * 13 May 1996, the applicant had surgery for acute cholecystitis, acute appendicitis * 20 June 1996, an Applicant Medical Processing Result which shows she was temporarily disqualified for service 10. On 31 October 1996, the applicant completed a self-authored letter, which states in effect: a. The previous two years had been very difficult for her. She missed her training date in June 1996 due to some medical problems she was having. Upon her recovery, she made attempts several times to get in touch with her recruiter to attend her training at a later date. She was trying to attend AIT prior to her starting school. When she received no response form her recruiter, she enrolled in school on 3 February 1997. b. In April, she spoke with her recruiter hoping for a summer date to attend AIT. She took a three month leave from school. During that time, she had more challenges concerning her health and her family. When things settled down, she enrolled in school in October 1997. c. She was then informed that there might have been a date for her to go to AIT in January 1998. She didn't finish school until June 1998, so she would be unable to attend that AIT. She didn't want to sacrifice any more time from school. d. Going to AIT in January would mean having to drop out of school, which would interfere with her progress and also cause more complications with her student aid. This also meant she would have to quit a job she hadn't been at for two months. e. She was also told that if she didn't attend AIT in January, she may be separated from the Army. She was willing to take that chance because her school and health meant a lot to her. 10. On 31 January 1997, the applicant completed a self-authored statement, which was not completely decipherable; however, she stated in effect in May 1995, she went into surgery for acute pertinitis. Her AIT was scheduled for June but upon arriving at MEPS for shipping out, she was disqualified for 90 days until she saw a family doctor. Once she got a doctor's note, she preceded to contact her recruiter or various occasions. No attempts were made to contact her back. 11. On 7 May 1997, a memorandum subject: Exception to Policy, states the commander was requesting a delay in reporting or and exemption from IADT to exceed 365 days because of temporary medical disqualification. 12. On 27 October 1997, a memorandum subject: Cancellation of USAR IAD Phase II Reservation states the applicant had her IADT cancelled. It was further requested the unit initiate action to discharge the applicant or to arrange a new IADT date. 13. On 26 March 1998, orders were published discharging the applicant from the USAR effective 25 March 1998. She was issued an uncharacterized characterization of discharge. 14. Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR)s does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief 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; this includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome. a. The applicant is requesting her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable so she can receive medical benefits and provides documentation showing she received her associates degree and master degree. b. The applicant 's service records contain self-authored letters, which indicate the applicant was unable to attend AIT due to family and medical issues. She also was in college at the time and did not want to attend AIT until the summer to avoid taking a break from her schooling. She was made aware that if she did not attend AIT, she could be separated from the USAR but that was a chance she was willing to take. c. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, stated Soldiers separated in an entry level status would receive an uncharacterized discharge. Entry level separation – – uncharacterized was used for separation under the provisions of this chapter. The applicant's records show she served 62 days of continuous active duty service. d. The absence of the applicant's separation packet means we are unable to determine the specific circumstance(s) that led to her discharge; however, the Board presumes the applicant's leadership completed her separation properly. This presumption notwithstanding, the lack of a separation packet represents an administrative irregularity. e. To be eligible for VA Benefits if a Soldier enlisted after 7 September 1989 or entered active duty after 16 October 1981, they must have served 24 continuous months or the full period period for which they were called to active duty unless they were discharged for a disability that was caused, or made worse, by their active-duty service or were discharged for a hardship or early out. f. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states 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. g. The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits; Department of Defense published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. 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. Upon review of the applicant’s petition and available military records, the Board determined applicant completed her basic training and was released from active duty. Soldiers in the USAR and ARNG are authorized and honorable discharge while in entry- level status only if they complete their active-duty schooling and earn their MOS, this is not the case. As such, her DD Form 214 properly shows the appropriate characterization of service as uncharacterized. 2. An uncharacterized discharge is not derogatory; it is recorded when a Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to initiation of separation. It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty 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. 3. The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 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): N/A REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 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 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. a. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. Soldiers separated in an entry-level status receive an uncharacterized character of service. A separation is an entry level status separation if its processing is initiated during the Soldier's first 180 days of continuous active duty. The Secretary of the Army could, on a case-by-case basis, issue an honorable character of service to entry-level Soldiers when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or duty performance. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that 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. 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. a. 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 on the basis of 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. b. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220000139 1 ARMY BOARD OF CORRECTIONS FOR MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1