RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012518


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Ms Judy L. Blanchard              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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, that her discharge under other than
honorable conditions (General) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she believes that the Army
Recruiter took advantage of her mental state, when he talked her into
enlisting into the Army. She adds that her son had died and she was still
having problems when she was given a discharge.  She adds that she became
pregnant again while she was in the Army.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 31 May 1985.  The application submitted in this case is dated
30 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’s record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 30 August 1984.

4.  On 15 April 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for
being absent without leave from 6 December 1984 to 19 March 1985.  Her
imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of
$144.00 pay (suspended for 30 days) and 14 days of extra duty.

5.  On 18 April 1985, the commander notified the applicant that she was
being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander’s
recommendation was based on the applicant’s long period of being AWOL and
her inability to develop sufficiently and to adapt to a military
environment.

6.  On 19 April 1985, 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 this 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.

7.  On 22 April 1985, a physical status evaluation found the applicant
qualified for separation.  The applicant’s medical records did not reveal
that she was pregnant at the time of discharge.

8.  On 23 April 1985, a psychiatric evaluation diagnosed the applicant as
having a number of psychosocial stressors.  Nevertheless, he found the
applicant mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and
adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and
participate in board proceedings. The psychiatrist recommended an
expeditious administrative discharge.

9.  On 10 May 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation,
waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the issuance of
discharge under honorable conditions (General).  On 31 May 1985, the
applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army
Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a
discharge under other than honorable conditions.  She had completed 5
months and 17 days of creditable active service.  The applicant was not
transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-
year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and
outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory
performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate
a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member
will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further
training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

12.  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.
13.  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 contentions were carefully considered and found to be
insufficient evidence in supporting her request.  There is no evidence nor
has the applicant submitted any evidence to support her allegation.

2.  The applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with
law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of her service
is commensurate with her overall record of military service.  The evidence
of record confirms that the applicant’s rights were fully protected
throughout the separation process.

3.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  In view of the
foregoing and given the circumstances in this case there is no basis for
granting the applicant’s request.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 May 1985; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
30 May 1988.  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

___WFC_  ___EEM _  __RMN__  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.




                                          _William F. Crain_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/08                              |
|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. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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