RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           21 December 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004105068


      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. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Semma E. Salter               |     |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, an upgrade of her general, under
honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the character of her service
listed in Item 24 (Character of Service) of her separation document (DD
Form 214) does not coincide with her Discharge Certificate.  She further
claims that since her discharge, she has been a solid citizen without a
criminal record.  She also states that she has been a contributor to many
charitable organizations worldwide and served with the United States Postal
Service as a temporary worker, as a second job, until a few months ago.

3.  The applicant provides a Self-Authored Statement, DD Form 214 and
Discharge Certificate in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 24 September 1982.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 1 March 2004.

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 she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 28 January 1981.  She was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 17C (Field Artillery Target
Acquisition Specialist) and the highest rank she attained while serving on
active duty was private first class (PFC).

4.  The applicant’s record further shows she earned the Army Service Ribbon
and Expert Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar while on active duty.  Her
record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  Her
disciplinary history includes formal counseling on seven separate occasions
between 27 July 1981 and 18 August 1982, for a myriad of performance and
conduct related infractions.
5.  The record also shows the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) on the following two separate occasions for the offense(s)
indicated:  30 July 1982, for failing to go to her prescribed place of duty
and disobeying a lawful order; and 3 September 1982, for two specifications
of breaking restriction.

6.  In August 1982, the applicant was notified by her unit commander that
separation action was being initiated on her under the provisions of
chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsuitability (apathy,
defective attitude and inability to expend effort constructively).

7.  On 31 August 1982, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects,
the rights available to her and the effect of waiving her rights.
Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant waived her right to consulting
counsel and elected not to submit statements in her own behalf.

8.  On 21 September 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by
reason of unsuitability and directed that she receive a GD.  On 24
September 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

9.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon her discharge confirms she
completed a total of 1 year, 7 months and 27 days of active military
service.  Item 24 contains an erroneous entry indicating the applicant’s
service was characterized as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC).


10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time,
provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for
unsuitability based on inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, or
homosexual tendencies.  Members separated under these provisions could
receive either an HD or GD.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of her GD to an HD was carefully
considered.  However, post service conduct alone is not a sufficiently
mitigating factor that would support granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that applicant’s separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicant regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s rights were
fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the
applicant’s discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service.

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 alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 24 September 1982.  Therefore, the
time for her to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 23 September 1985.  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.

5.  The evidence of record does confirm the separation authority directed
the applicant receive a GD, which should have resulted in an Under
Honorable Conditions entry in Item 24 of the applicant’s DD Form 214;
however,
Item 24 contains an erroneous entry of UOTHC.  This is an administrative
error that does not require action by the Board.  Therefore, the
applicant’s record will be administratively corrected by the Case
Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as outlined by the
Board in paragraph 3 of the
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___FE __  __SES __  ___PMS_  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 the overall merits of this case regarding an upgrade of her
discharge is 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.

3.  The Board determined that an administrative error in the records of the
individual concerned should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests
that the
CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual
concerned by amending Item 24 (Character of Service) of her DD Form 214 by
deleting the current entry and replacing it with the entry “Under Honorable
Conditions”; and by providing her a corrected separation document that
includes this correction.




            ____Fred Eichorn________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105068                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/12/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1982/09/24                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitabilty                            |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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