RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017241


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland C. Heflin             |     |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 narrative reason for
separation (Unsatisfactory Performance) be changed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she got out of the Army because
of sexual harassment, her suicide attempt, and because the unit was under
investigation.  She states that the first sergeant let everyone who wanted
out get out.  She states that she is using her Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), to try to obtain a job, but she
cannot get a job because the unsatisfactory performance on her discharge
does not look good.  She further states the reason she got out of the Army
was not because of her performance, but what had happened to her.

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentary evidence in
support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 26 August 1986, the date of her discharge from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 25 November 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 record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army on
17 June 1985, for period of 4 years.  She was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 73C10 (Finance Specialist).
 The highest grade she attained was pay grade E-2.

4.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement or service warranting special recognition.


5.  Between April and June 1986, the applicant’s record shows that she was
formally counseled on five different occasions for her poor duty
performance, for her negative attitude, for three incidents of writing bad
checks, and for being disrespectful toward her superiors.

6.  On 6 June 1986, a Mental Status Evaluation found the applicant mentally
responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the mental
capacity to understand and participate in discharge proceedings.  On the
same date a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.

7.  On 26 July 1986, the applicant was admitted to a hospital on Fort
Bragg, North Carolina for taking a lethal dose of pills.  The applicant’s
records are missing the facts and circumstances of the incident.

8.  On 4 and 7 August 1986, the applicant was again evaluated by a medical
doctor on a referral from the medical intensive care unit on Fort Bragg.
The applicant was found mentally responsible, able to distinguish right
from wrong, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in
discharge proceedings.  It was also determined that the problem presented
by the applicant were not amenable to hospitalization, brief treatment, a
rehabilitative transfer, disciplinary action, retraining, or a MOS
reclassification.  The medical doctor believed that it was unlikely that
any rehabilitative measures would produce an effective Soldier.  Further
retention of the applicant most likely would create additional management
problems for the command.  The applicant was cleared for an administrative
discharge.

9.  On 15 August 1986, the unit commander notified the applicant that he
was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance
with a discharge under honorable conditions (General).  The unit commander
based this action on the applicant’s poor duty performance.

10.  On 18 August 1986, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for
unsatisfactory performance, its effects and of the rights available to her.
 Subsequent to counseling, she waived her right to have her case considered
by an administrative separation board and she elected not to submit
statements in her own behalf.

11.  On 20 August 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation, waived rehabilitation and directed that the applicant be
separated with a discharge under honorable conditions (General).  On 26
August 1986, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 with a discharge under honorable conditions,
the narrative reason for separation is shown as Unsatisfactory Performance.
 The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms she completed a total of 1 year, 6
months, and 25 days of active military service.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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.

13.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year
statue of limitations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that she got out of the Army because she was
being sexually harassed, that she attempted suicide, and that her unit was
under some type of an investigation was carefully considered.  The evidence
of record does confirm that she took a lethal dose of pills; however, there
is no other evidence in her military record nor has she presented any
evidence in support of her allegations.  Therefore, given the circumstances
in this case and her overall record of service, there is insufficient
evidence to support her request at this time.

2.  The evidence of record does show the applicant’s administrative
separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and
there is no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized her
rights.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law
and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge
and the narrative reason for separation is commensurate with the
applicant's overall record of military service.


3.  Therefore, 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 26 August 1986; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
25 August 1989.  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

__JTM___  ___PBF_  __RCH__  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 T. Meixell____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/10/17                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chen                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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