BOARD DATE: 10 January 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120011723 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states she never expressed that she did not want to be in the Army; however, the way her squad leader and platoon sergeant presented her concerns about her husband amounted to a fabricated way to get her discharged. She continues by stating she was cheated out of her career as a military police officer because she was young and did not know the questions to ask and she now needs her medical benefits. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents with her application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 September 1992 for a period of 5 years and training as a military police. She completed her one station unit training at Fort McClellan, Alabama. 3. She married on 22 February 1993 and on 28 February 1993 she was transferred to a Military Police Company in Berlin, Germany. 4. On 6 May 1993, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against her for disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer. 5. On 15 June 1993, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was initiating action to discharge her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He cited as the basis for his recommendation that she had repeatedly failed to go to her place of duty despite numerous counseling sessions, that she had failed her physical fitness test, that she failed to respond to rehabilitation attempts and had expressed that she did not desire to be rehabilitated, and that she lacked the potential for further training and becoming a satisfactory Soldier. 6. After consulting with counsel the applicant elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf. 7. The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 28 June 1993 and directed that she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 8. Accordingly, she was discharged under honorable conditions on 8 July 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. She had served 9 months and 17 days of active service. 9. There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change an upgrade within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service. An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 11. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 provides 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights. 2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances. 3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to her overall undistinguished record of service and repeated failure to go to her place of duty. 4. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any basis to grant her request for an upgrade of her discharge. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ 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 that 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120011723 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120011723 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1