RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000927


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret Patterson            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Gerald Purcelli               |     |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 under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states she only requests that her discharge be upgraded
on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of her
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 4 August 1989.  The application submitted in this case is dated
20 January 2006.

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 initially enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 25
April 1974.  She completed the required training and was awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 73C (Finance Specialist).  She was promoted to
specialist five on 25 September 1979.  The applicant was discharged from
the USAR Ready on 24 March 1980 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.


4.  The applicant reenlisted in the USAR on 25 March 1980 and continued to
serve in this component through a series of reenlistments.  She later
completed the required training in MOS 71L (Administrative Specialist).

5.  She was ordered to active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) on
12 August 1985.

6.  The applicant was promoted to sergeant on 1 October 1985.

7.  On 4 May 1989, the applicant tested positive for cocaine.

8.  She was absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 June 1989 to 4 June 1989.
9.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 20 July 1989 for being
AWOL from 2 June 1989 to 4 June 1989; for wrongfully using cocaine at some
unknown location between 25 April 1989 and 4 May 1989; and for making and
uttering worthless checks on six separate occasions.

10.  On 27 July 1989, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, she
admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that she might
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that she might be
ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans
Affairs (VA) if a discharge UOTHC was issued.

11.  The applicant submitted statements in support of her request for
discharge for the good of the service.  She requested that the convening
authority approve her chapter 10 discharge and award her a general under
honorable conditions discharge.  She stated she served in the Army for 15
years, which included 6 years of active duty, and received several awards
and Certificates of Achievement.  She stated she was a qualified 73C20
finance specialist.  She enjoyed her military career and was proud to have
been able to serve.  She also stated she accepted responsibility for the
actions which severely damaged her military career as well as her personal
life.  She continued to state that she was attending Alcohol & Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) meetings and she believed she was
making progress towards a drug-free life.  She was also attending
counseling at the Mental Health Service within her unit.  The stress of her
job and the death of her grandmother contributed to her prior actions.

12.  The applicant further stated that, as a civilian, she would be
responsible to help support her family.  An UOTHC discharge would destroy
any hope of her getting a good job in the civilian world.  She sincerely
regretted that she conducted herself in a manner unbecoming of a
noncommissioned officer of the United States Army.  She felt she was now
able to continue with her life as a productive individual.  She further
stated that a chapter 10 was serious punishment for the offenses for which
she was charged.  She requested that she not be further burdened with an
UOTHC discharge due to the many years of good service she had given the
Army.

13.  On 31 July 1989, the separation authority approved the discharge under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with issuance of a
discharge UOTHC.

14.  The applicant was discharged from active duty on 4 August 1989 under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the
service with a discharge UOTHC.  She had completed 3 years, 11 months, and
21 days of active military service during the period under review.  Her DD
Form 214 shows she had 6 months and 8 days total prior active service and
10 years,
9 months, and 9 days total prior inactive service.  She had 2 days of lost
time due to AWOL.

15.  Her DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 August 1989 shows she, a
noncommissioned officer, was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the
Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Reserve
Components Achievement Medal (2nd Oak Leaf Cluster), the Armed Forces
Reserve Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, and the Sharpshooter
Marksmanship Qualification Badge.

16.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC
is normally considered appropriate.

18.  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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

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 record of service shows she, a noncommissioned officer
with over 10 years of service, tested positive for cocaine, was AWOL for 2
days, and uttered worthless checks on six separate occasions during the
period under review.  As a result, her record of service was not
satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel for either a fully honorable or a
general discharge.

3.  Considering the seriousness of the applicant's offenses, it appears
that her service was appropriately characterized.

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the
evidence of record that the type of discharge issued to her was in error or
unjust.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 August 1989; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 3 August 1992.  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

MP______  MF______  GP______  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.




                                  Margaret Patterson____
                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000927                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060803                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19890804                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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