IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  15 January 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080017525 


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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she believes she deserves an HD because she did nothing wrong to deserve a GD.  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary 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 record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 24 January 1980.  Her record also shows she never completed advanced individual training (AIT) and was never awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS).  Her record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special recognition.  It further shows the applicant received no individual awards or decorations while serving on active duty.

3.  The applicant's record contains Military Personnel Center (MILPER) Message 031904Z July 1980.  This document shows that based on an unfavorable security clearance investigation the applicant's approval for training in MOS 97B (counterintelligence) had been revoked.

4.  On 11 July 1980, the applicant requested to be discharged from the service under the provisions of paragraph H-5, Appendix H, Army Regulation 601-210, by reason of unfulfilled enlistment.  The applicant stated that she did not meet the requirements for the 97B course due to an unfavorable security clearance investigation.  The applicant's commander recommended approval of her request for discharge.

5.  On 13 August 1980, the separation approving authority after careful consideration denied the applicant's request for discharge.  This official stated that the applicant had enlisted for MOS 97B requiring a security clearance and access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI).  He also stated that during her enlistment processing the applicant had signed a DA Form 3286-3, acknowledging that if SCI access was denied, based on information she withheld or changed during the process, her enlistment option for MOS 97B would be voided and she would be assigned to meet the needs of the Army for the term of service for which she enlisted.  Further, the separation approval authority directed, based on the applicant's SCI denial, that she be reassigned to the United States Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for training in MOS 71L (Administrative Specialist).

6.  On 7 October 1980, she accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 August 1980 until on or about 
15 September 1980.  Her punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $150.00 for two months (one month was suspended for thirty days) and 10 days of extra duty and restriction.



7.  On 22 October 1980, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action on her under the provisions of chapter 13-4c, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability.  The unit commander stated his reason for taking the action was the applicant's lack of motivation, inability to adapt to the military environment and general apathy toward further military training.  Subsequently, on 23 October 1980, the applicant acknowledged her notification.

8.  On 24 October 1980, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to her, and the effect of a waiver of her rights.  Subsequent to this counseling, she waived consideration of her case and a personal appearance before an administrative separation board, and her right to consulting counsel.  She also elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  

9.  On 3 November 1980, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant receive a GD.  On 7 November 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she had  completed a total of 8 months and 27 days of creditable service and she had accrued 15 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

10.  There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge within the ADRB’s 15-year statute of limitations.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, or homosexual tendencies.  Members separated under these provisions could receive either an HD or GD. 

8.  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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her GD should be upgraded to a HD because she did nothing wrong was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that based on providing conflicting derogatory information during her security investigation the applicant received an unfavorable SCI access, thereby revoking her approved training in MOS 97B as a counterintelligence agent.  The evidence of record also confirms the applicant's disciplinary history which included her acceptance of NJP for being AWOL for 
15 days which clearly diminished the quality of her service below that warranting a fully honorable discharge.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant's rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

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

___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)                                         AR20080017525



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080017525



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1