1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 May 2016 b. Date Received: 20 May 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the documentation that she provided with her application. Her statement for enlistment dated 28 June 2013, states "If [she] fail[s] to attain a passing score on the ECLT and a minimum OPI score of L2 and S2 in English, [she] will not graduate from the DLIELC and will be processed for separation lAW paragraph 6-5, AR 601-210." She was not separated under this regulation, but under entry level performance and conduct, which is inappropriate for her specific situation. She has provided a May 2005, version of the AR 601-210, 6-5 and a more recent 2013, revised version, in order to show that in 2005, the regulation states persons who do not meet either of these requirements will be processed out. The 2013 regulation has omitted that portion, but instead has placed verbiage that states Lackland AFB, may grant exceptions as appropriate for Soldiers that score 70-74 and score a 1 plus in comprehension and 1 in speaking on the oral presentation interview (OPI). The applicant states that she was not at Lackland, but rather Fort Jackson. She is also providing a letter that was written on behalf of another Soldier that was discharged just before her under the same circumstances; this Soldier was provided an honorable discharge. The only difference between the applicant and the other Soldier are their personally identifiable information. She provides redacted copies of the other Soldier's DD Form 214, which was provided to the applicant in support of the applicant's application to show how different she was processed out in comparison to the applicant, when their circumstances were exactly the same. Additionally, the applicant provides copies of her evaluations during her schooling to show that she was a top student. She had no conduct issues and her counselor actually wrote that she had done everything an instructor could ask for. The instructor also wrote that she was a wonderful and motivated student and that she just tried too hard. The applicant states there are multiple factors involved in this specific situation, but she in no way believes that she deserved the uncharacterized discharge that she received. She requests that all the documentation be considered and that the Board would see that her conduct while enlisted was honorable and that she tried her hardest. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 July 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Entry Level Performance and Conduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 11 / JGA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 11 July 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 July 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She failed to meet the academic requirements of the 09L program since her arrival on 7 January 14; and, She had not been able to maintain passing scores on the ESL test. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 1 July 2014, the applicant waived her rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 July 2014 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 January 2014 / 3 years, 40 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / One Semester College / 84 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / None / 6 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Student Counseling Record, dated 9 April 2014, reflects the applicant was counseled for "Lack of ECL growth (54, 60, 57, 55)." Three Developmental Counseling Forms, for failing the ECLT. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-9 contains guidance on entry level separations. It states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if, at the time separation action is initiated, the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service. Chapter 11 of AR 635-200 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status (ELS). An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to Soldiers separating under this chapter. A general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. However, the applicant provided her case separation documents for the Board's consideration. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. The applicant contends that she was not separated under the proper regulation in accordance with her enlistment contract. However, the regulation the applicant referenced, governs the enlistment program and governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. The applicant contends that another Soldier with the same circumstances received an honorable discharge. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. At the time the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of discharge proceedings, the applicant had served less than 180 days and as such she was still in entry-level status. Further, the uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 July 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160009710 4