IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  25 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100019282 


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 general under honorable conditions or honorable.

2.  She states:

* the type of discharge wasn't explained to her prior to her discharge
* she wanted to reenlist, but she couldn't
* there was a lot of racism at Fort Sill
* she and W____ W____ were friends and she repaid the money
* she was called to the battalion commander's office and told she was being discharged
* she has suffered hurt, injustice, loss of veterans' benefits, and loss of jobs

3.  She provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document).

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 August 1984 for a period of 3 years.

3.  Charges were preferred against her on 7 August 1985 for:

* stealing two checkbooks of some value less than $100.00 and $250.00, the property of Private (PV2) W____
* writing a check in the amount of $250.00 on the account of PV2 W____
* making a false official statement

4.  She consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  In doing so, she admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that she might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that she might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if a UOTHC discharge were issued.  She did not submit statements in her own behalf.

5.  The separation authority approved her request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

6.  She was discharged on 9 September 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge.  She completed 1 year, 1 month, and 1 day of active military service.

7.  Her service record does not indicate she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

9.  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.

10.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's service record does not indicate an error or injustice exists in her case.

2.  Her service record does not support her contention that her type of discharge wasn't explained to her.  The evidence of record shows she consulted legal counsel and was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC.  She was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in her own behalf, but she declined.

3.  Her service record contains no evidence to support her contention that she experienced racism at Fort Sill.

4.  Although she contends she repaid the money to PV2 W____, her service record shows she was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.

5.  She voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

6.  She has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing her UOTHC discharge to general under honorable conditions or honorable.



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 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)                                         AR20100019282



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100019282



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1