IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  29 June 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100000155 


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 her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states the error was on her part.  She was young and crazy and she wanted to get out of the Army at the time of her discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no documents 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 military record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 21 July 1980.  She served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist).
3.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) that she was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/E-4 on 2 February 1982, and this was the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty.  Her record also shows she was reduced on three separate occasions and that her final reduction was to private (PV1)/E-1 on 3 May 1983.

4.  Item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns) of the applicant’s DA Form 
2-1 shows that she earned the Army Service Ribbon, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, and Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar during her active duty tenure.  

5.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. It does reveal a disciplinary history that includes acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following four separate occasions:

   a.  on 3 September 1982, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 31 July - 1 August 1982;

   b.  on 20 January 1983, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 16 December 1982 and for being AWOL from on or about 
17 - 22 December 1982;

   c.  on 2 March 1983, for being AWOL from on or about 2 - 13 February 1983; and

   d.  on 26 April 1983, for wrongfully and knowingly using a controlled substance (marijuana).

6.  The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge processing.  The record does contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows the applicant was separated on 12 May 1983.  It also shows she was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, with a UOTHC discharge.

7.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 also shows that at the time of her discharge she had completed 2 years, 11 months, and 14 days of creditable active military service and she had accrued 18 days of time lost due to being AWOL.

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

9.  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, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate.

10.  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.

11.  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 satisfactory but 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 contentions that her UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to an HD because she was young, crazy, and wanted to get out of the Army at the time of her discharge were carefully considered and determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant granting the requested relief.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing.  However, it does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of the applicant’s discharge.  This document carries with it a presumption of government regularity in the discharge process.  Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, it is concluded her separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation; and that all requirements of law and regulation were met and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  In addition, the applicant admits there is no error in her military record.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show 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)                                         AR20100000155



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100000155



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1