RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 April 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060014503


      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. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David K. Haasenritter         |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John G. Heck                  |     |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 honorable
conditions (General) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she believes that she was
discharged unfairly.  She states, that she did not know then and she does
not know now, why charges were preferred against her.  She adds that she
was an outstanding Soldier, who obeyed orders and kept her nose clean.  She
never received an Article 15, nor was she ever reprimanded.  She served her
command for 2 years and then she went to the Reserve before returning to
active duty.  She never had any problems other than physical ailments.  She
was not considered a good female Soldier according to her company commander
because she was bombarded with health issues and female disorders, which
eventually led to a surgery and a diagnosis of endometriosis.  She
submitted to her company commander a written complaint concerning her first
sergeant and other personnel who was exchanging falsified
documents/information that was placed in her personnel record to aid in
receiving points toward being promoted, such as passing physical training
(PT) scores, which she never took; receiving an expert marksmanship
qualification score after never being on the firing range; and also for
taking leave that had not been subtracted in order to receive pay for
alleged unused time off.  She adds, that the first sergeant’s sexual
misconduct toward her was made known and that she wanted something to be
done about it because she was a single parent engaged to another Solder and
did not want any trouble.  The first sergeant was later transferred and
charges were preferred against her and she was told that if she did not
comply with the proceedings, she would have to leave the Army with a
dishonorable discharge.  She then requested statements from fellow Soldiers
and also obtained statements from medical personnel documenting her
misdiagnosis and her constant visits until she was diagnosed with
endometriosis.  She later requested legal representation and at that time
she felt that she was in a good place until copies of her written complaint
that she had submitted to her company commander was circulated.  Once that
was discovered and the reason why the first sergeant was transferred she
became “public enemy #1.”  She states, that she was alienated and demean on
a daily basis.  No one talked to her and she was considered a traitor and
someone to watch.  The mental anguish continued for weeks.  During this
time she was pregnant with her second child and because of the stress of
being ostracized she miscarried.  After the miscarriage a lawyer came to
her room and presented to her discharge papers in which she states that she
could not read. She was told that if she signed the papers she would be
immediately discharged as soon as she left the hospital and she would not
have to see her commander or her command again.  She signed the discharge
papers.  She later received a copy of the discharge papers which had
statements that she was an indecent woman that carried herself less than
honorable (whore).  She stated that she did not know what the rest of the
paperwork stated, but she felt humiliated and disgusted.  Documents were
missing from what was left of her paperwork.  She adds that she was married
for 10 years with five children.  All her children were by the man she
married and she never carried herself as nothing less than a lady.  After
losing three of her children in a fire in 1996 and almost losing her mind
she is requesting that her discharge be upgraded to an honorable.  She has
a son and daughter remaining that she is trying to exemplify excellence and
dignity with her life and her actions.  She wants an upgrade of her
discharge more for her children than for herself.

3.  The applicant provides a 4-page letter in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 12 April 1990.  The application submitted in this case is dated
6 October 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 15 December 1988, with 2 years, 2 months and 17 days
of prior honorable active service.  She was trained in and awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 75B (Personnel Administration Specialist) and
the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was pay grade E-
4.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

4.  Between March 1989 and March 1990, the applicant was counseled on
numerous occasions on her work performance, for indebtedness, for child
care problems, for conduct unbecoming a future noncommissioned officer, and
for frequent and lengthy absences.

5.  On 8 March 1990, 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 and with a general
discharge, under honorable conditions.  The commander’s recommendation was
based on the applicant’s poor attitude, lack of productivity, chronic
absenteeism, her extensive medical and family related personal problems,
and her inability to develop sufficiently and to adapt to a military
environment.  Her personal problems simply prevent her from becoming a
productive Soldier.  The commander believed that the needs of the United
States Army would be best served by removing the applicant from active duty
as soon as possible.

6.  On 12 March 1990, 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.

7.  On 2 April 1990, 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.

8.  On 6 April 1990, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation,
waived further rehabilitative efforts, and directed the issuance of a
discharge under honorable conditions (general).  On 12 April 1990, the
applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200,
chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge.  She
had completed 1 year, 3 months and 28 days of creditable active service
during this period.  She had completed 3 years, six months, and 15 days of
total active service.

9.  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.

10.  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.
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 contentions of the applicant were carefully considered and found to
be insufficient in merit.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s
military record, there is just no evidence nor has the applicant submitted
any evidence, except for her 4-page letter, to support her allegations.

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.  The characterization of service directed and the reason for separation
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 12 April 1990; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
11 April 1993.  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

___JS ___  ___DKH_  ___JGH _  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.




                                            _  John Slone_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/04/19                              |
|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]