RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            15 January 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003090891

      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey              |     |Analyst              |

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Allen L. Raub                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests in effect, that her general, under honorable
discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she should have two honorable
discharges and that she was just informed that she could take this action
to appeal her discharge.  She also indicates that the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) has granted her a service connected disability for a
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting an upgrade of her GD of 2 December 1982.
The application submitted in this case is dated 1 May 2003.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record shows that she initially enlisted in the Regular
Army and entered active duty on 6 October 1978.  She was trained and served
in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76P (Materiel Control Accounting
Specialist), and the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty
was specialist (SPC).

4.  The record shows that during her active duty tenure, the applicant
served overseas in Korea and earned the following awards:  Army Service
Ribbon, Army Good Conduct Medal, Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Professional
Development Ribbon (1), and Overseas Service Ribbon (2).  There are no
other acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special
recognition documented in her record.
5.  The applicant’s record contains an extensive disciplinary history that
includes her acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the
provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on
27 August 1982, for failure to go to her place of duty at the time
prescribed.  Her punishment for this offense included a reduction to
private first class (PFC).  In addition, she was formally counseled for a
myriad of minor disciplinary infractions and poor duty performance on
numerous separate occasions between 18 May 1982 and
5 August 1982.

6.  On 17 August 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated a Bar to
Reenlistment (DA Form 4126-R) on her due to her indebtedness and marginal
conduct and efficiency.

7.  On 18 August 1982, the applicant was counseled regarding her bar to
reenlistment and at that time she refused to sign the bar to reenlistment
certificate, and elected to submit a statement on her own behalf.  On
21 September 1982, she submitted the statement and signed the bar to
reenlistment certificate.  On 30 September 1982, the approving authority
approved the applicant’s bar to reenlistment certificate.

8.  On 3 November 1982, the applicant was notified by her unit commander
that action was being initiated to separate her under the provisions of
chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance.

9.  On 9 November 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and
after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and
its effects and the rights available to her, she elected to submit a
statement on her own behalf.  In this statement, she alleged she was
unfairly treated based on personality conflicts with members of her unit
leadership.

10.  The applicant’s record contains a copy of a mental status evaluation
completed on 15 November 1982.  This document confirms that the applicant
was psychiatrically cleared for separation.  It also contains a copy of a
separation physical examination, dated 19 November 1982.  The clinical
evaluation portion of the form contains the entry “Normal” in Item 42
(Psychiatric) and Item 77 (Examinee) shows that the applicant was cleared
for separation by competent medical authority.

11.  On 23 November 1982, the separation approving authority approved the
applicant’s discharge and directed that she receive a GD.  On 2 December
1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

12.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of her separation
confirms that she completed a total of 4 years, 1 month, and 27 days of
creditable active service.

13.  There is no evidence of record that indicates the applicant applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board to request an upgrade of her discharge
within its
15-year statute of limitations.

14 .  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and
outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory
performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate
a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member
will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further
training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that her discharge should be upgraded based
on her overall record of service and because she now suffers from PTSD were
carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record confirms that the
applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the
law and regulation applicable at the time.  Further, the character of the
discharge is commensurate with her overall record of military service.

2.  Notwithstanding her current PTSD condition, the record contains a
mental status evaluation and separation physical examination that confirm
that
the applicant suffered from no mental or physical condition that would have
precluded her continued service.  The separation physical examination on
file shows that she was cleared for separation by competent medical
authority.  Therefore, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to
warrant an upgrade to her discharge.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or
injustice now under consideration on 2 December 1982; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 1 December 1985 However, the applicant did not file
within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling
explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice
to excuse failure to file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__AR__  __WDP__  _MKP___    DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this
case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it
would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure
to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations
prescribed by law.




            Margaret K. Patterson
                CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003090891                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/01/15                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1982/12/02                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsatisfactory Performance              |
|BOARD DECISION          |                                        |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |