IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       26 March 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080017121 


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, that her general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  Furthermore, she requests that the narrative reason for separation be changed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she has seen the error of her ways.  She was very young when entering the military service and was unable to cope with military life.  The applicant states that she is a law-abiding citizen who has made something out of her life.  She works for the State of Illinois as an auditor.  She has worked for the State of Illinois since 1995.  Now, she would like to work for the Federal government as an auditor in order to receive better benefits. 

3.  The applicant provides, in support of her application, a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 

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.  On 24 November 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 5 years. At the time, her age was 18 years and 3 days.  She was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey where she completed the Basic Combat Training Course.  

3.  On 10 February 1990, the applicant was assigned to the 187th Medical Battalion located at Fort Sam Houston, Texas for advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 92B (Medical Laboratory Specialist).  The available evidence does not show she completed this training or was awarded an MOS. 

4.  On 2 July 1990, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 28 May to 30 May 1990.  The punishment included an oral reprimand, a forfeiture of $350.00 pay per month for 
2 months, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.  Her appeal of the punishment was denied.

5.  On 17 July 1990, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to go to her appointed place of duty (three times); for failure to perform hourly sign-in; and for wrongfully being in her bed after the start of the duty day.  The punishment included a forfeiture of $165.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended) and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.  She did not appeal the punishment.

6.  On 20 July 1990, the applicant’s commander notified her of his intention to recommend that she be separated from the United States Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct. The commander stated that the applicant had no potential for useful service in the military.

7.  On or about 20 July 1990, the applicant consulted with counsel concerning her rights.  She elected to make a statement in her own behalf and requested representation by counsel.  In her statement, the applicant said that her discharge should have been for unsatisfactory performance and not for misconduct.  She contended that her life was very stressful during the months of May and June, due to being dropped from her training course and not being able to return home to get married.  She felt that a discharge for misconduct unfairly stigmatized her.  She felt that some people were unsuited for military life and she was one of those people.  Lastly, she stated that she wanted to get out of the Army, find a good job, and be able to have a fresh start.

8.  On 30 July 1990, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  Accordingly, on 8 August 1990, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct - pattern of misconduct.  She had completed 8 months and 10 days of creditable active service, and she had 5 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

10.  On 18 August 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge and determined that she had been properly and equitably discharged.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense that could result in a punitive discharge, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

12.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant acknowledges that she was not suited for life in the military and now sees the error of her ways.  She desires employment with the Federal government and needs her discharge upgraded and the narrative reason for separation changed.  

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant implies that her young age was the reason for her mistakes.  She was 18 years of age at the time of enlistment.  She successfully completed the Basic Combat Training Course and served for approximately 7 months without disciplinary action being taken against her.  There is no available evidence that convincingly shows her failure to complete advanced individual training and/or that her misconduct were due to her age.

5.  The applicant was punished (twice) for misconduct involving four separate infractions.  Therefore, the narrative reason for separation is supported by the available evidence.

6.  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.

7.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20080017121



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080017121



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1