RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  24 July 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009459 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. John Infante

Chairperson

Ms. Rose M. Lys

Member

Mr. James R. Hastie

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 reconsideration of her discharge upgrade.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she did not have any nonjudicial punishment or lost time to warrant her general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant further states that she was on ordinary leave during the time she was considered absent without leave (AWOL). 

3.  The applicant provides a Postal Service (PS) Form 3806 (Receipt for Registered Mail); a self-authored statement; Separation Order Number 13-1, dated 22 June 1993 and Amendment Order Number 20-1, dated 
23 September 1993; Transfer Order Number 124-5, dated 1 July 1992; and
a DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave) in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC97-08759, on 29 July 1998.  This case was subsequently reviewed twice as ABCMR Docket Number AR1999024330 on 31 March 1999 and as ABCMR Docket Number AR20050014904 on 23 May 2006.  Neither case was presented to the Board based on a failure to provide new evidence or argument.

2.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 4 June 1993, the date of her involuntary separation.  The application submitted in this case is dated 8 December 2006.

3.  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.

4.  The applicant's record shows that she initially enlisted in the Connecticut Army National Guard (CTARNG) on 15 August 1978.  The applicant was ordered to initial active duty for training on 17 November 1978 and was released from active duty on 13 March 1979 and returned to the control of the CTARNG. 
5.  On 13 July 1979, the applicant entered into active duty for a period of 4 years and was honorably released on 14 July 1983.

6.  On 12 March 1984, the applicant enlisted in the CTARNG, in the pay grade of E-4, for a period of 1 year and was honorably discharged on 20 March 1985.

7.  On 15 August 1989, the applicant enlisted in the CTARNG and was ordered to full time National Guard duty in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program on 25 June 1990.

8.  The available records show the applicant's commander approved her DA Form 31, Ordinary Leave, for the period 25 February 1993 through 12 March 1993, a total of 16 days. 

9.  On 5 March 1993, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for inefficiency.  She was ordered to report to her unit at 0800 hours on 8 March 1983 and was informed that if she did not report by the time indicated she would be considered AWOL.  The applicant was also informed that she had failed to report or contact her unit for the last three days and that this type of behavior was unacceptable.  It was also stated that the applicant was irresponsible and had no regard for authority.  

10.  On 5 April 1993, the applicant received another LOR for inefficiency.

11.  On 19 April 1993, the applicant was notified by her commander that she was being recommended for separation for cause under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-5.

12.  On 27 April 1993, the applicant submitted her rebuttal to her commander stating, in effect, that she encountered car trouble and was unable to find suitable transportation to report on time. 

13.  On 11 May 1993, the applicant's commander submitted his recommendation to involuntary separate the applicant for cause from her current tour of duty with the CTARNG.

14.  On 24 June 1993, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions from the CTARNG and as a Reserve Soldier of the Army under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-5, paragraph 6-5 for professional dereliction.  She had served 10 years, 5 months, and 16 days of creditable active service and had 2 months and 13 days of lost time.

15.  On 5 May 1995, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge.  The ADRB determined that her discharge was proper and equitable, and denied her request to have her discharge be characterized as honorable on 16 July 1997.

16.  On 1 June 1997, the applicant applied to the ABCMR requesting a discharge upgrade, promotion, and administrative remedies.  On 29 July 1998, the ABCMR granted certain administrative remedies pertaining to her military occupational specialty (MOS), but denied her request for a discharge upgrade.

17.  On 21 December 1998, the applicant resubmitted her application for a discharge upgrade and submitted a DA Form 31, letter of inefficiency, a self authored letter, and three copies of military orders to the ABCMR.  The ABCMR determined that the submission did not show any new evidence which would warrant a recommendation to reopen her case.  Therefore, the case was administratively closed on 31 March 1999.

18.  On 22 September 2005, the applicant again resubmitted her request for an upgrade of her discharge to the ABCMR.  On 23 May 2006, the ABCMR determined that the applicant's request was not received within 1 year of the ABCMR's original decision and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.  Therefore, the ABCMR returned the applicant's request without further action.

19.  National Guard Regulation 600-5 sets forth the basic authority for the AGR Program.  It states, in pertinent part, that the reasons for involuntary separation include inappropriate professional and personal conduct and moral or professional dereliction.  

20.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 established standard, policies, and procedures of the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of accessions and retention; civilian acquired skills; initial active duty for training and voluntary active duty; personnel management; promotion, appointment, and reductions; extensions; bars to 
reenlistment; and discharges.  Chapter 8, paragraphs 26x and 27g provide for the separation of personnel due to expiration of service obligation and for unsatisfactory performance.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that her under other than honorable discharge should be upgraded because of an injustice, she had no lost time or nonjudicial punishment.

2.  The applicant's records show that her separation was conducted in accordance with the applicable regulation with no indication of procedural error or injustice.

3.  The applicant's records show that she had 2 months and 13 days of lost time. Additionally, the records show the applicant received two letters of reprimand.  Based on her record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army National Guard personnel.  This misconduct also rendered her service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ji____  __rml___  __jrh___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050014904, dated 23 May 2006.



							John Infante
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070009459
SUFFIX

RECON
19980729
DATE BOARDED
20070724
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19930624
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
NGR 600-5
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
DIRECTOR
ISSUES         1.
110.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.