RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  21 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011174 


	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. Wanda L. Waller

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Marla Troup

Chairperson

Mr. John Heck

Member

Mr. Donald Lewy

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 under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. 

2.  The applicant states that she served her country very well up until her duty in Europe.  She contends that she allowed her anger to get the best of her and that the community was very prejudiced and unbearable.  She also contends that she received harsh punishment and has paid dearly for her mistake.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 11 February 1987.  The application submitted in this case is undated; however, it was received in this office on 7 August 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 on 25 January 1982 for a period of 3 years.  She successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 71L (administrative specialist).  On 7 January 1985, she was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  She reenlisted on 
8 January 1985 for a period of 3 years.

4.  On 4 December 1985, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 3 July 1986) and extra duty. 

5.  On 21 October 1986, charges were preferred against the applicant for being derelict in the performance of her duties and for two specifications of larceny.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.  

6.  The applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  She indicated in her request that she understood she might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an other than honorable discharge; that she might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; that she would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; and that she might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  She also acknowledged that she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an other than honorable discharge.  She elected not to make a statement in her own behalf. 

7.  On 26 January 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that she be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 February 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial.  She had served 5 years and 17 days of total active service.  

9.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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 claim of anger issues and a prejudiced community do not provide a sufficient basis for upgrading her discharge.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was a victim of discrimination.   There is no evidence of record to show the applicant sought assistance from her chain of command or chaplain on a way to resolve her problems within established Army procedures.     

2.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  She had an opportunity to submit a statement in which she could have voiced his concerns and she failed to do so.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and three serious offenses that led to referral of special court-martial charges.  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.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice now under consideration on 11 February 1987; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 10 February 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

MT_____  __JH___  ___DL___  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.



__Marla Troup_________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060011174
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070221
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19870211
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200 Chapter 10
DISCHARGE REASON
For the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.