RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  20 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012854 


	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.


x

	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 undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge (HD) and a change to the narrative reason for separation.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there was some confusion in shipping out to her next duty station.  She claims that after reporting to the incorrect place for departure, she just went back home.  She states that she is now requesting an upgrade of and change of reason for her discharge so that she can receive medical benefits.  

3.  The applicant provides her separation document (DD Form 214) in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 25 March 1974.  The application submitted in this case is dated 
31 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 Military Personnel Record Jacket (MPRJ) is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding her separation processing.  The record does contain a DD Form 214 that shows on 25 March 1974, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, and that she received an UD.  

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 also shows that she earned the National Defense Service Medal, and that she completed a total of 7 months and 17 days of creditable active military service.  It also shows she accrued 245 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL).  
5.  There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

6.  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.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an UD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request that her UD be upgraded and that the narrative reason for her separation be changed so she can apply for medical benefits was carefully considered.  However, this factor alone does not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 

2.  By regulation, an UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for members separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  However, the separation authority may direct a GD or HD be issued if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment.  

3.  The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing.  However, it does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of her discharge.  Therefore, Government regularity in the discharge process is presumed.  Absent information and evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

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 25 March 1974, the date of her discharge. Therefore, the time for her to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 24 March 1977.  She failed to 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.
as 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

___x _  __x __  _x__  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.




_____x__
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012854
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/03/20
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE
1974/03/25
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR635-200 . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON
Ch 10
BOARD DECISION
Deny
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Mr. Schwartz
ISSUES         1.
110
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.