IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 July 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100000968 


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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* she was a very impetuous, precocious teen when she joined the Army
* she became a civic/community leader and entrepreneur
* being a professional has given her the opportunity to grow and see things a lot differently
* she would be ever so appreciative if the Board would honor her request to change her record to reflect her path in life as she has chosen to live it now, which is honorable
* she is a mature, professional woman who has grown and learned from her actions as a young immature teen

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 was born on 5 October 1967.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 June 1985 at 17 years of age for a period of 4 years.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (food service specialist).

3.  On 26 February 1986, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the appointed time.  Her punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty.

4.  The applicant was counseled for:

* being late for duty on 11 March 1986
* being late for duty on 12 March 1986

5.  On 23 October 1986, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for altering a public record.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay (suspended), restriction, and extra duty.

6.  The applicant was counseled for:

* dishonored checks on 25 February 1987
* being late for duty on 24 June 1987

7.  On 28 July 1987, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for breaking restriction.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

8.  On 7 October 1987, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using disrespectful language and deportment toward a noncommissioned officer.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and extra duty.

9.  On 4 December 1987, the applicant was notified of her pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14, for misconduct (minor disciplinary infractions).  Her unit commander cited she had a continuous record of disciplinary and administrative actions within the 2 years of her assignment to the unit.

10.  On 4 December 1987, the applicant consulted with counsel, requested representation by counsel, and acknowledged that she might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued.  She also elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  

11.  On 14 December 1987, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge (misconduct - minor disciplinary infractions) and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

12.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 7 January 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 
14-12a, for misconduct (minor disciplinary infractions).  She had served a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 24 days of creditable active service.

13.  There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.  Chapter 14, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, and abuse of illegal drugs.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.  However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such was merited by the member's overall record.

15.  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.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  Although the applicant was 17 years of age when she enlisted, she completed basic training and advanced individual training.

2.  Good post-service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.
3.  The applicant's record of service included adverse counseling statements and four nonjudicial punishments.  As a result, her record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

4.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  She had an opportunity to submit a statement in which she could have voiced her concerns and she failed to do so.

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

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)                                         AR20100000968



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100000968



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1