RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 DECEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004510


      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. James Hise                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald Blakely                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |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 that her records be corrected by upgrading her
discharge.

2.  The applicant states that she was 16 years of age when she joined the
Army and was scared to be away from home.  She was told by her recruiter
that she would be able to stay close to home and would not have to go
overseas.  When she received orders to go overseas she asked to be released
from her obligation but was told no because her MOS (Military Occupational
Specialty) was needed. She was a 71M (Chaplain's Assistant).  She could not
understand, and was told that it did not matter what she had been told by
her recruiter, she was going.  She got upset and angry and told her
commander that if she had to go she was leaving.  She feels she was young
and stupid and if she had to do it over she would be proud to serve her
country.

3.  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 15 March 1983.  The application submitted in this case is dated
30 March 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’s records indicate she enlisted and entered active duty
on
3 February 1982, for a period of 3 years.  Born in July 1963, she was 5
months shy of turning 19 when she enlisted.

4.  On 1 February 1983, she accepted nonjudicial punishment under the
provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent
without leave (AWOL) from 21 January 1983 to 31 January 1983, and for
disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer.  Her
punishment was reduction, forfeiture of pay, and 7 days correctional
custody.

5.  On 18 February 1983, her commander preferred court-martial charges
against her for disobeying a superior commissioned officer (two
specifications), disobeying a superior noncommissioned officer, being
disrespectful in language to a superior noncommissioned officer, and for
breaking restriction.

6.  On 18 February 1983, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service,
under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  She acknowledged that she was guilty of the charges against her,
and that she understood the effects of receiving an under other than
honorable conditions discharge.

7.  On 1 March 1983, her unit, intermediate, and senior commanders
recommended approval of her discharge request and recommended she be issued
an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

8.  On 3 March 1983, the appropriate separation authority approved her
discharge request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter
10, and directed her reduction to the lowest enlisted grade with the
issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

9.  On 15 March 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu
of court-martial.  Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty indicates she had 1 year, 1 month, and 3 days of active
service and 10 days of lost time.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority
for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation
provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or
offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge
could at any time after the charges had been preferred; submit a request
for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation
provided for the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions
discharge.







DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service, to
avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the
request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant's contention that she was young and immature at the time
is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief, nor supported by the
evidence of record. The Board notes that the applicant was 19 at the time
of her first offense and nearly that age when she enlisted.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 March 1983; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
14 March 1986.  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
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JH____  __RB ___  __JM ___  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.




                                  _______James Hise________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004510                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051220                                |
|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]