BOARD DATE:	  12 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100030399 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* she is responsible, mature, independent, and has been sober for 15 years
* she is a productive citizen, paying taxes, and working very hard 6 days a week

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 October 1979 for a period of 3 years.  On 30 September 1982, she was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  She reenlisted on 1 October 1982 for a period of 3 years.  She was promoted to sergeant in 1983.  On 12 December 1985, she was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  She reenlisted on 13 December 1985 for a period of 6 years.

3.  On 13 March 1989, she was absent without leave (AWOL) and she returned to military control on 16 July 1989.  Charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.

4.  On 25 July 1989, she consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  She indicated that by submitting her request for discharge she acknowledged she was guilty of a charge against her that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She indicated in her request she understood she might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge, she might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, she would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and she might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  She acknowledged she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She elected not to make a statement in her own behalf.

5.  On 28 September 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed that she be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

6.  She was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 October 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She completed a total of 9 years, 8 months, and 1 day of creditable active service with 125 days of lost time.

7.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for 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 under other than honorable conditions 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.  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.  Her contentions were carefully considered.  However, good post-service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

2.  Her record of service during her last enlistment included 125 days of lost time.  She was a sergeant.  As a result, her record of service was not satisfactory and 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 or a general discharge.

3.  Her voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  She had an opportunity to submit a statement in which she could have voiced her concerns; however, she elected not to do so.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were 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 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)                                         AR20100030399



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100030399



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1