RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006000


      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. Maria C. Sanchez              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James C. Hise                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. 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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable
discharge.

2.  The applicant states that she was young and immature at the time her
mother signed her up to join the military.  She continues that she did not
complete her term and is currently considering reenlisting again.

3.  The applicant provides a one-page statement in support of her
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 12 February 1987, the date of her separation from active duty.
The application submitted in this case is dated 4 April 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, with parental consent, on
4 February 1986, for a period of 3 years.  After completion of basic and
advanced individual training, she was awarded military occupational
specialty 91A (medical specialist) and assigned to the 25th Medical
Battalion, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

4.  The applicant's service records reveal a 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
the following five separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  on 18
February 1986, for being absent without leave (AWOL); on 24 April 1986, for
failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty; on 5
August 1986, for AWOL; on 19 September 1986, for being disrespectful in
deportment towards a superior noncommissioned officer; and on 25 November
1986, for being disrespectful in language towards a Staff Duty
noncommissioned officer.

5.  The applicant's records contain an undated Record of Counseling which
shows the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions pertaining to
failure to report (two occasions) and disrespect (one occasion).  The
applicant and her unit commander authenticated the document.

6.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 28 January
1987, shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  The
examining medical officer indicated that the applicant had the mental
capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, was mentally
responsible, met the retention requirements, and was psychiatrically
cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.

7.  On 4 February 1987, the unit commander submitted a request for waiver
of rehabilitative transfer based on the applicant's unsatisfactory
performance.

8.  On 4 February 1987, the unit commander advised the applicant that she
was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 13 of
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) for
unsatisfactory performance.  The memorandum further informed the applicant
of her right to submit any statements on her behalf, to be represented by
counsel, and to waive the above rights in writing.

9.  On 4 February 1987, the applicant was advised by counsel regarding her
contemplated administrative separation from military service under the
provisions of Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory
performance.  The applicant waived her rights to representation by her
appointed counsel and to submit any statements on her own behalf.

10.  The applicant also acknowledged she could be discharged under
honorable conditions and furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The
applicant also acknowledged that she may expect to encounter substantial
prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under honorable
conditions.  Both the applicant and her counsel authenticated this
document.

11.  On 4 February 1987, the battalion commander of the 25th Medical
Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Support Command, approved the
recommendations to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Chapter
13 of Army Regulation 635-200 and furnish her a General Discharge
Certificate.  The battalion commander also approved the waiver for
rehabilitative transfer.


12.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that she was discharged on
12 February 1987, under the provisions of Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-
200, for unsatisfactory performance, issued a General Discharge Certificate
with service characterized as under honorable conditions, and given a
reenlistment code of RE-3.  She had served 1 year and 9 days of net active
service.

13.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for
upgrade of her discharge.  On 23 August 1995, the ADRB considered her case
and found that she had been properly and equitably discharged.  As a
result, the ADRB voted unanimously to deny her request.  The ADRB notified
her of their findings by letter dated 1 December 1995.

14.  The applicant submitted a statement wherein she wrote that her
discharge was based on an incident where she stabbed her husband.  She
continues that they were both young and immature when they got married and
she didn't know that her husband was a "wife beater."  The applicant
further states that there was no excuse for her behavior, "but at 17 & 18
years old, we all made dumb mistakes."

15.  The applicant concludes that she is now more mature and is considering
enlisting in the Reserve to use her Montgomery GI Bill; therefore, wishes
that her discharge be upgraded.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for
administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this
regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to
unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual
will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse
impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member
will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will
continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform
effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or
leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of
unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as
honorable or under honorable conditions.

17.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for
enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army
Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for
prior service applicants for
enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes,
including RA RE codes.  Prior to discharge or release from active duty,
individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the
reason for discharge.

18.  Army Regulation 601-210 provides that RE-3 applies to persons not
qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.
 Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so
disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those
discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.

19.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute
allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion
requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens
that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on
the date of final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the
ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit
from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative
remedy is utilized.

20.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that she was young and immature when she was in
the military; therefore, her discharge should be upgraded to an honorable
discharge.

2.  Contrary to the applicant's contention, there is no evidence that
indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same
age who successfully completed military service.


3.  Evidence shows the applicant’s administrative separation was
accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no
indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights.
The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is
commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  The applicant also contends that her discharge was based solely on the
incident when she stabbed her husband.  The preponderance of evidence shows
that the basis for the applicant's separation was her unsatisfactory
performance over a nine-month period of service and not solely the stabbing
incident.

5.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, these factors do
not provide a sufficient basis for upgrade of her discharge.

6.  The applicant's record of service included three counseling sessions
and five nonjudical punishments for various offenses including AWOLs, being
disrespectful towards her superiors, and for failure to be at the appointed
place of duty at the times prescribed.

7.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly
does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for Army personnel.  Additionally, her service is deemed unsatisfactory in
view of her repeated incidents of disrespect towards authority.  Therefore,
she is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

8.  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.

9.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 1 December 1995.
As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of
any error injustice to this Board expired on 31 November 1998.  The
applicant did not file within the ABCMR's 3-year statute of limitations and
has not provided compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would
be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this
case.



10.  The applicant is advised that while RE-3 does apply to persons who are
not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service; there are
provisions that provide for a waiver of the disqualification.  If she
desires to reenlist, she should contact a local recruiter to determine her
eligibility.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as
to the needs of the Army at the time and are required to process RE code
waivers.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JCH__   _REB____  _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 C. Hise__
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006000                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/12/20                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1987/02/12                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, ch 13                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsatisfactory performance              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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