IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  13 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100025516 


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, an upgrade of her general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  She states "they" said she received a GD because she failed a captain's inspection.  She did not fail the inspection.  She could not disgrace her platoon that way.  She does not presume to know all that goes into decisions about discharge conditions, but if it was because she didn't pass an inspection, it was false.

3.  She provides no additional evidence in support of her request.

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 Women's Army Corps on 18 July 1967 and entered basic training.

3.  On 4 October 1967, her commander informed her that she intended to recommend her for discharge for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability).  Her commander informed her of her rights to:

* present her case before a board of officers
* submit statements on her own behalf
* consult with counsel prior to waiving any rights and be represented by counsel before a board of officers
* waive the above rights in writing

4.  On 6 October 1967, she acknowledged she had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish her separation for unsuitability under Army Regulation 635-212.  She waived her rights to consideration of her case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and representation by counsel.  She elected not to submit statements on her own behalf and acknowledged she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a GD were issued to her.

5.  On 9 October 1967, an Army psychiatrist reported the results of his evaluation of her.  He found she was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  He noted her motivations for joining the service were questionably sincere and she adamantly desired to be separated.  He stated she was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action.

6.  On 11 October 1967, her commander submitted a recommendation for separation for unsuitability due to apathy.  Her commander attached a statement to her recommendation showing the applicant was counseled numerous times for her poor performance during training and refusal to improve.  The statement also shows she repeatedly stated her desire for discharge.

7.  On 19 October 1967, the separation authority approved her discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed that she be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  On 27 October 1967, she was discharged accordingly.

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

9.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 6b provided that an individual was subject to separation for unsuitability when one or more of the following conditions existed:  (1) inaptitude; (2) character and behavior disorders; (3) apathy (lack of appropriate interest, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively); (4) alcoholism; (5) enuresis; and (6) homosexuality (Class III - evidenced homosexual tendencies, desires, or interest, but without overt homosexual acts).  When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based on the individual's entire record.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) governs the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a GD 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 evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge to an HD.

2.  She has not provided any evidence and the available record does not contain any evidence of irregularities in the discharge process or evidence that her rights were not protected throughout the separation proceeding.

3.  The evidence of record shows she was counseled numerous times for her poor performance during training, refused to improve her performance, and repeatedly stated her desire to be discharged.  Because of this record of indiscipline, her service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Her record of indiscipline also rendered her service insufficiently meritorious to warrant an HD.

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)                                         AR20100025516



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100025516



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1