RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011562 


	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. Frank C. Jones, II

Chairperson

Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas

Member

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

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 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that she had no disciplinary action during her military service.  She also adds that she has been a model citizen and patriotic American who has been consistently working hard and paying taxes.

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional evidence in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s records show that she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program (DEP) for 6 years on 14 November 1979.  She was discharged from the DEP on 28 December 1979 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  She completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91E (Dental Specialist).  The highest rank she attained during her military service was private first class (PFC)/E-3.

3.  The applicant’s records further show that she was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar. 

4.  The applicant's service records reveal a disciplinary history of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 24 October 1980, for wrongfully using reproachable words toward another Soldier on or about 1 October 1980 and for failing to go to her appointed place of duty on or about 6 October 1980.  Her punishment consisted of forfeiture of $200 pay for one month, $100 of which was suspended for 90 days.

5.  The applicant’s records reveal that she was assigned as a dental hygienist to the 86th Medical Detachment in Germany on 8 July 1981.

6.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not available for review with this case.

7.  It appears that during the period on or about 8 July 1981 and on or about 16 November 1981, the applicant’s commander notified her that  she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention, with a General Discharge.  It also appears that her commander cited the reasons for the recommendation such as poor attitude; a lack of motivation and loss of self-discipline; inability to adapt socially; a failure to demonstrate promotion potential; a quitter attitude; hostility towards the Army; inability to accept instructions and directions; and substandard performance and lack of cooperation with peers and superiors.  The applicant would have been informed of the rights available to her and that she had the right to legal counsel. 

8.  On 16 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-31, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and ordered the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 1 December 1981, the applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD) from the Army with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) she was issued confirms that she was released in accordance with paragraph 5-31h(1) of Army Regulation 635-200 for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).  This form further confirms that she had completed a total of 1 year,
11 months, and 4 days of active military service.

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


11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time, the pertinent paragraph in chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment, and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential could be discharged.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.  No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  The regulation placed the separation authority at the special court-martial convening authority level (i.e., battalion commander).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that her discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered and determined to be without merit

2.  Although all documents pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available, it is presumed her discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  It appears that the applicant was a substandard Soldier who demonstrated a poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, and an inability to adapt socially or emotionally to the Army.  Because she could not or would not meet acceptable standards of conduct, her commander recommended that she be discharged under the EDP.

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. 








BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__fcj___  __lmd___  __mjf___  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



							Frank C. Jones, II
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070011562
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080108
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(GD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19811201
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, Chap 5
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.