RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           31 August 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004102690


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Sloane                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |

      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
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her discharge is now preventing her
from achieving her employment goals and prevents her from obtaining a job
with the police force or with the government.  She further indicates that
serious personal problems she was experiencing at the time contributed to
the misconduct that resulted in her discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in support of her
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 1 August 1988.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
31 October 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 19 February 1985.  She was trained in and
awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 75E (Personnel Actions
Specialist).

4.  On 30 April 1987, the applicant was honorably discharged, by reason of
pregnancy.  At the time, she held the rank of specialist four (SP4) and she
had completed 2 years, 2 months and 11 days of active military service.

5.  On 2 December 1987, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army and
reentered active duty.  She was trained in and awarded MOS 77F (Petroleum
Supply Specialist).

6.  The applicant’s record shows that during her tenure on active duty, she
earned the Army Service Ribbon.  No acts of valor, significant achievement
or service warranting special recognition are documented in her record.

7.  On 15 July 1988, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent
without leave (AWOL) from on or about 6 June through on or about 5 July
1988.  Her punishment for this offense included a reduction to private/E-1
(PV1).

8.  On 27 July 1988, the applicant was notified by her unit commander that
separation action was being initiated on her under the provisions of
chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of commission of a serious
offense.  The applicant’s AWOL and civilian charges of disorderly conduct
were cited as the basis for taking the action.  The commander informed the
applicant that he was recommending she receive a GD.

9.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis
for the contemplated separation action, the effects of such a separation,
the rights available to her, and the effect of any action taken by her in
waiving her rights.  Subsequent to receiving this counseling, the applicant
completed her election of rights by waiving her right to have her case
considered by an administrative separation board, waiving her right to
consulting counsel and declining to submit statements in her own behalf.

10.  On 29 July 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation and directed that she receive a GD.  On 1 August 1988, the
applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, she
had completed
7 months of her current enlistment and a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 12
days of active military service.  She also had accrued 30 days of time lost
due to AWOL.

11.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.
12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy for the separation of
enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 contains the policy guidance for separation
by reason of misconduct.  The issuance of a discharge under other than
honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that her discharge is preventing her from
achieving her employment goals was carefully considered.  However, although
unfortunate, this factor alone does not provide an evidentiary basis to
support the requested relief.
2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge
processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects her overall
record of service.  Notwithstanding the personal problems she experienced,
her misconduct clearly diminished the quality of her service below that
meriting an HD.

4.  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.

5.  The record shows the applicant should have discovered the alleged error
or injustice now under consideration on 1 August 1988.  Therefore, the time
for her to file request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
31 July 1991.  However, she 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
timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JNS ___  _JRS____  _RLD ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would 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.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            _      John N. Sloane______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004102690                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |Y2004/08/DD                             |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1988/08/01                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C14                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Comm of Serious Offense                 |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]