RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001630


      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:

|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau               |     |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, an upgrade of her under other than
honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her ex-husband, a civilian, was
responsible for the drugs found in their military housing in Germany.  She
states that she requested a discharge in order to care of her four minor
children.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her Good Conduct Medal Certificate for
the period of 12 November 1981 through 11 November 1984 and an Arkansas
Criminal History Report Non-Criminal Justice Purpose, dated 28 September
2005, in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 11 June 1986, the date of her discharge.  The application
submitted in this case was received on 2 February 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 enlisted in the Army on 12 November 1981 for a period of
3 years.  After completion of basic and advanced individual training, she
was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist).  She
served in Germany during the period 21 August 1983 through 10 June 1986.

4.  The applicant's records do not contain any evidence of personal
misconduct or acts of indiscipline.  Record shows she was awarded the Good
Conduct Medal for the period 12 November 1981 through 11 November 1984.




5.  The applicant's service records contain an incomplete copy of AE Form
1166, dated 18 December 1985, completed by an investigation with the
Kaiserslautern Drug Suppression Team.  This form shows the applicant's
husband was suspected for wrongful possession, use, and distribution of
controlled substances.  This form further shows that the applicant's
husband admitted to having cocaine, heroin, and hashish in their home.

6.  On 14 January 1986, the applicant received a notification from
Headquarters 377th Combat Support Wing, APO New York, which ordered
termination of her housing assignment for reason of failure to control her
dependents.

7.  On 17 January 1986, the Army Family Advocacy Program Coordinator of the
29th Area Support Group, APO New York, requested an extension to remain in
government housing on behalf of the applicant due to the considerable
financial hardship.  The Army Family Advocacy Program Coordinator stated
that the request to vacate government housing was based on the applicant's
husband misconduct.

8.  Headquarters, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Orders Number 9-
1, dated 12 February 1986, attached the applicant to Pine Bluff Arsenal for
the purpose of a pending hardship discharge.

9.  In February 1986, the discharge approving authority approved the
applicant's request for a hardship discharge under the provisions of
chapter 6 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations) effective 25 February 1986.

10.  A DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions),
dated 4 March 1986, shows that the applicant was facing court-martial
actions for "alleged possession in her government leased housing quarters
of illicit drugs including 84 grams of hashish, 13 grams of marijuana, 0.7
grams of cocaine, 0.25 grams of heroin, drug paraphernalia, and an
unauthorized firearm."  This form also shows that the estimated street
value of the seized drugs was approximately $4,000.00.

11.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the
applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 6 of Army
Regulation 635-200 for hardship.



12.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that she was discharged on 11 June
1986, under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for
the good of the service – in lieu of court-martial, in the pay grade of E-
1, with the reenlistment code of RE-3 and 3C, and issued a Discharge
Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  She had served 4 years
and 7 months of net active service.

13.  The applicant's records do not contain the processing paperwork for
discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.

14.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for
upgrade of her discharge.  On 16 April 1987, 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.

15.  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 at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

16.  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.

17.  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.




18.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her discharge under other than honorable
conditions should be upgraded to a general discharge because her ex-husband
admitted and was responsible for the drugs found in their home.

2.  Evidence of records shows that the applicant's ex-husband was the
responsible party and that the applicant was removed from government
housing as a result of failing to control her dependents.

3.  Records show that the applicant requested and was granted a hardship
discharge prior to her separation on 11 June 1986.  However, these orders
were apparently revoked because the Army decided to charge the applicant
for drug possession.

4.  The facts and circumstances of the applicant's discharge are not
available for review.  However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
regularity is presumed in this case and that all requirements of law and
regulation were met and the applicant’s rights were fully protected
throughout the administrative separation process.

5.  The applicant's records indicate that she voluntarily requested
discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.
Discharge under Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 requires an admission
of guilt to the offenses charged.  The separation and reentry codes
assigned to the applicant were the proper codes for members separating for
in lieu of trial by court-martial. The reduction to the lowest pay grade is
the proper procedure when individuals are issued a discharge under other
than honorable conditions.  Therefore, the applicant's contentions are not
consistent with Chapter 10 procedures and the evidence of record in this
case.
6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
satisfactorily show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the
record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit
sufficient evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

7.  Records show the applicant exhausted her administrative remedies in
this case when her case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 16 April 1987.  As
a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice to this Board expired on 15 April 1990.  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

__JLP___  _RMN__  __CD____  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.




                                      _Carmen Duncan___
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001630                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061024                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1986/06/11                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, chapter 10                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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