RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        6 DECEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003451


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Bernard Ingold                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Donald Steenfott              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward Montgomery             |     |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 the authority and narrative
reason for her separation be changed.

2.  The applicant states that she was new to the East Coast and got
stranded in New York and called her sergeant every day requesting a ride,
but it took 2 days for someone to come get her.

3.  The applicant further states, in effect, that the reason for her
separation was unjust because she was blocked from reenlisting and it was
stated that she was inappropriate for military retention.  She is now
seeking higher pay in positions with more responsibility.

4.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 16 April 1981.  The application submitted in this case is dated
26 February 2005.

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 limitations 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 August 1980, for a
period of 3 years.  She completed basic training at Fort McClellan,
Alabama, and advanced individual training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

4.  On 3 September 1980 she accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the
provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for
assaulting another female Soldier by striking her in the face with a closed
fist.  Her punishment was restriction, extra duty, and a forfeiture of pay.

5.  On 23 March 1981, she accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15,
UCMJ for failure to go at the appointed time to her place of duty.  Her
punishment was extra duty and reduction in grade.
6.  On 31 March 1981 the applicant was notified by her commander that he
was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge
Program).  The reason for his proposed action was the applicant’s poor
attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt
socially or emotionally, and her failure to demonstrate promotion
potential.

7.  On 1 April 1981, a medical examination cleared the applicant for
separation.

8.  On 1 April 1981, a Psychiatric/Psychological Evaluation cleared the
applicant for any action deemed appropriate by the command.  The evaluation
noted that the applicant was deficient in attitude and motivation and
related a negative attitude towards remaining in the military.  Her
attitude was not likely to change and it was unlikely that she would put
forth the effort for successful performance of her duties.

9.  On 9 April 1981, the applicant acknowledged notification by her
commander of his intent to separate her under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31.  She voluntarily consented to the
separation.  She submitted no statements, and acknowledged that if her
service was characterized as less than honorable she understood she could
expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.

10.  On 10 April 1981, the appropriate separation authority approved the
separation request and directed that the applicant be released from active
duty and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) for completion
of her service obligation.

11.  On 16 April 19891, the applicant was released from active duty under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to
maintain acceptable standards for retention, and transferred to the IRR.
Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
indicates she had
7 months and 29 days of active service.  Her service was characterized as
honorable.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, in effect at the time,
provided for the separation of members who had demonstrated that they could
not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel
because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline,
inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and failure to demonstrate
promotion potential.  Members separated under this paragraph will be
released form active duty and transferred to the IRR to complete their
service obligation.
13.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the standardized policy for
preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it directs
that the regulatory authority authorizing the separation will be entered in
item number 25 of the DD Form 214.  Item number 28 will contain the
narrative reason for separation, as shown in Army Regulation 635-5-1 based
on the regulatory authority.

14.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities
(regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the
separation of members from active military service, and the separation
program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  It indicates that
"failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention" is the appropriate
narrative reason for discharge when the authority is "Army Regulation 635-
200, paragraph 5-31."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2.  Her DD Form 214 accurately reflects the appropriate separation
authority in item number 25 (separation authority) and narrative reason for
separation in item number 28 (narrative reason for separation).

3.  The applicant's argument that her separation stemmed from her
unavoidable delay in New York is not supported by any evidence in available
records.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no
doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

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

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 16 April 1981; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
15 April 1984.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations and had 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

__BI ____  __DS ___  ___EM __  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.




                                  _____ Bernard Ingold_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003451                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051206                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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