IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 June 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100030003 


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 an upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  She states, in effect, she did not believe the particulars were serious enough to justify the discharge that she received.  She believes members of her former unit discriminated against her.  

3.  She provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show she enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 6 April 1999.  She enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), on 21 July 1999, for 4 years, in pay grade E-1.  She completed training and she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31L (Cable Systems Installer-Maintainer).

2.  On 27 October 2000, she was honorably released from active duty due to pregnancy, and transferred to a Reserve unit, in pay grade E-3.

3.  On 2 October 2001, she enlisted in the RA for 3 years, in MOS 31L, and in pay grade E-3.  


4.  On 11 December 2003, the applicant’s unit commander advised the applicant that she was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct, with a general discharge.  The unit commander stated the reasons for the proposed separation action were the applicant's company grade Article 15 for disobeying a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and multiple negative counseling statements constituting a pattern of misconduct.  

5.  On 15 December 2003, after consulting with counsel, she acknowledged receipt of the unit commander's notification.  She also acknowledged that she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to her.  She waived her rights and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

6.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 October 2003, cleared her for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.

7.  On 17 December 2003, the applicant’s unit commander recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, with a general discharge.  The unit commander believed that if the applicant were allowed to remain in the military her poor performance would continue and she would be a disruptive influence in the unit and on the U.S. Army.

8.  On 12 January 2004, the separation authority approved the recommendation for the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 26 January 2004, she was discharged in pay grade E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct, with a general discharge.  She was credited with completing 2 years, 3 months, and 25 days of net active service and she had no recorded lost time.

10.  On 15 September 2009, the Army Discharge Review Board denied her request for an upgrade of her discharge.

11.  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 discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states 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 meets the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization will be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 11 December 2003 the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct, with a general discharge.  The unit commander stated the reason for the separation action was the applicant's company grade Article 15 for disobeying an NCO and numerous negative counseling statements.  

2.  After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged the impact of the discharge action and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation of the applicant.  The separation authority approved her separation action and she was discharged accordingly on 26 January 2004.

3.  Her contentions were carefully considered; however, based on the available evidence, there is no basis for the upgrade of her general discharge to a fully honorable discharge.  She has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument to show her separation action was unjust or that she was discriminated against and as a result she was prevented from completing her enlistment.  The evidence shows her misconduct diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  She was properly discharged and she has not shown otherwise.

4.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it appears her administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting her requested relief.

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)                                         AR20100030003



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100030003



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1