IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  	  9 SEPTEMBER 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080012357


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of her request that her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that her name has been legally changed which includes an unspecified medical or doctoral title.  She also states, in effect, that she rendered her application at 9 p.m. on 4 July 2008 while celebrating America’s 232nd birthday with fireworks in the background.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), two certificates from the Help Hospitalized Veterans organization, one certificate from Boys Town, a photograph, and a copy of a Congressional news release 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 AR20060017803 on 3 July 2007.

2.  The applicant’s military service record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 February 1984.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty 31M (Multi-channel Communications Equipment Operator).  The highest rank she achieved was private/pay grade E-3.

3.  The applicant’s military service records show numerous disciplinary infractions as cited in her previous Board proceedings.  Therefore, they will not be discussed further in this case.

4.  On 22 December 1985, the applicant was notified by her commander that she was being recommended for discharge for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance).  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance and acts or patterns of misconduct.

5.  On 22 December 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.

6.  On 30 December 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation, waived further rehabilitative efforts, and directed the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.

7.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that she was discharged on 31 December 1985 in the rank of private/pay grade E-1 with a characterization of general under honorable conditions for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  Her DD Form 214 shows that she served a total of 1 year, 10 months, and 15 days of creditable active military service during this period.

8.  A hand-written note, presumably by the applicant, in the margin of the copy of the DD Form 214 provided by the applicant states that “the UN needs [to be] removed for a FULL satisfactory performance!”

9.  Two undated certificates from the Help Hospitalized Veterans organization show that the applicant was recognized as a Donor of the Year for 2007 and 2008 for her past kindness, thoughtfulness, constant caring, and unselfish generosity toward worthwhile charitable causes.

10.  An undated certificate from Boys Town shows that the applicant was acknowledged for her generous support of the Boys Town 2008 Annual Appeal.

11.  A graduation photograph imprinted with the applicant’s name dated 26 June 2007 shows that she received a diploma from the Supernational Ministries Training Institute for successful completion of the required studies.

12.  A Congressional news release dated 18 December 2007 shows that a Congressional representative from Michigan gave a statement in support of the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007 which insures that members of the Armed Forces who are discharged as a result of combat-related wounds receive the full compensation to which they are entitled by the Department of Defense.

13.  The applicant offers no other evidence or argument in support of her request for reconsideration.

14.  The applicant’s military service records do not show any significant acts of valor during her military service.

15.  On 29 December 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged and denied her petition to upgrade her discharge.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a Soldier may be separated per this chapter when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  This chapter provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a Soldier when, in the commander’s judgment, the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records.  Although an honorable discharge is authorized, a general discharge under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

17.  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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

18.  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 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 request for reconsideration that her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge was carefully considered and determined to be without merit.

2.  The applicant did not provide pertinent new evidence or new argument in support of her request for reconsideration.  The applicant's post-service conduct as evidenced by her certificates for charitable volunteer work was considered; however, commendable post-service conduct alone is not sufficient basis for upgrading a discharge.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s unit commander notified her of the contemplated separation action and that she consulted with legal counsel. It further shows that after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its possible effects, she voluntarily elected to waive her right to have her case considered by a board of officers and elected not to submit a rebuttal statement in her own behalf.

4.  The applicant’s military service records show that she had a record of disciplinary infractions that ultimately led to her discharge.  Further, her records reveal no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  Therefore, her general discharge under honorable conditions accurately reflects her overall record of service.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ___X____  ___X ___  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 AR20060017803 dated3 July 2007.



      __________X______________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012357





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012357



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1