BOARD DATE:	  14 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110000150 


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.  

2.  She states she:

* found out that her ex-husband disappeared with her daughter so she took it upon herself to find her 
* explained the situation to her company commander, staff sergeant, and sergeant, but they didn’t listen and wouldn’t give her an honorable discharge
* contacted the Army one month after she left, but it took them years before they even sent her a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* found her daughter after 2 years
* shouldn’t be charged with misconduct because she was doing an honorable thing
* was a good Soldier while serving in the military, received a Letter of Appreciation, Food Specialist certificate, and passed all of her testing

3.  She provides her birth certificate, Letter of Appreciation, and Information Fact Sheet (Compassionate Reassignment and Hardship Discharge).  



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 29 April 1981.  She was assigned to Fort Jackson, SC and she completed basic training.  She did not complete advanced individual training for military occupational specialty (MOS) 75D (Personnel Records Specialist).  

3.  Her service record contains a DA Form 2496-1 (Disposition Form), dated 17 July 1981, which indicated she was below point standard and had failed all the tests which she had taken.  The form indicated the applicant stated she understood the material, but didn’t have the ability to be a 75D.  It was recommended she be dropped from the course.  

4.  She provided a copy of a Letter of Appreciation, dated 30 July 1981, she received for her outstanding performance of duty she displayed while assigned as a 71L (Clerk).  

5.  Her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows she was in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from 1 to 2 August 1981.  

6.  Orders were published on 20 September 1981 reassigning her to Germany.  

7.  She completed advanced individual training and was awarded MOS 94B (Food Service Specialist) in October 1981.  

8.  Orders were published on 12 November 1981 which attached her to the Transient Holding Detachment at Fort Sheridan, IL, effective 12 November 1981.  She was relieved from this detachment, effective 12 December 1981.  

9.  A review of her service record shows the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN attempted to contact her by letter on four separate occasions indicating:

   a.  On 4 May 1984, a review of her records failed to produce evidence of her discharge/separation from military service.  She was advised to provide a copy of her DD Form 214 if she had been discharged from her latest service obligation or to report to a chief warrant officer at the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, KY with a copy of the letter if she had not been discharged.  
   
	b.  On 12 February 1985, 7 May 1986 [addressed to her brother], and 23 April 1987, available documentation indicated she was in a status of desertion and was eligible for a discharge in absentia.  It was anticipated that her discharge would be under other than honorable conditions.  She was advised of the effects of this type of characterization of service and was advised of her opportunity to submit a statement in her behalf.  

10.  Orders published on 5 June 1987 discharged her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), effective 5 June 1987.  The additional instructions indicated she was not entitled to pay and allowances from 1 through 2 August 1981 and from 15 December 1981 through 5 June 1987.

11.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 by reason of misconduct – serious offense – desertion with service characterized as UOTHC.  She completed 7 months and 14 days creditable active service with 1,998 days of lost time.  

12.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.  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 UOTHC is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  

   b.  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 statements in regard to the disappearance of her daughter are acknowledged.  However, she had many legitimate avenues (chain of command, chaplain, inspector general) through which to obtain assistance or relief without committing the misconduct (desertion) which led to her discharge.  

2.  The evidence of record shows she was provided an Information Fact Sheet (Compassionate Reassignment and Hardship Discharge) to assist her to obtain approval for a reassignment or hardship discharge due to extreme family problems.  Her service record does not indicate she attempted to apply for a compassionate reassignment or hardship discharge.  

3.  Her service record shows she was discharged on 5 June 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 by reason of misconduct – serious offense – desertion.  

4.  It appears the chain of command determined that her overall military service did not meet the standards for a general under honorable conditions or fully honorable discharge as defined in Army Regulation 635-200 and appropriately characterized her service as UOTHC.

5.  Her service record does not indicate the actions taken in her case were in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting her request.  

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)                                         AR20110000150





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000150



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1