IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  21 September 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110003141 


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 under honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states she was young and going through some personal difficulties which labeled her as a troubled Soldier.  She has been serving her current enlistment with the National Guard honorably and without any disciplinary problems.

3.  The applicant does not provide any additional evidence to support 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, and 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 served as a 92Y (unit supply specialist) during the period 
8 August 2002 through 5 February 2005.  

3.  Records show that the applicant received punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 4 March 2003, for wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21.

4.  Records show that the applicant received company grade punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on 23 July 2003, for failure to go to her appointed place of duty. 

5.  Records show that the applicant received field grade punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on 8 October 2003, for driving with a suspended license.

6.  Records show that, on 8 January 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation under the provisions of Chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) by reason of patterns of misconduct, with a general under honorable conditions discharge.

7.  Records show the applicant was advised of her rights and the impact of the discharge action.  She waived her right to consult with legal counsel and did not submit a statement on her own behalf.

8.  Records show the commander recommended separation from service and a waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.

9.  Records show the intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge.

10.  Records show, on 15 January 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.

11.  On 4 April 2006, the applicant submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to have her character of discharge upgraded to Honorable.
   
12.  On 9 February 2007, the President of the ADRB informed her that the board reviewed her case and determined she was properly and equitably discharged.  Accordingly, her request for a change in the character and/or reason of her discharge was denied.
13.  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 consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), 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.

14.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request that her record be corrected to upgrade her general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered and determined to be without merit.

2.  Her record shows she was nearly 19 years of age at the time of enlistment and 20 years of age at the time of her offenses.  However, there is no evidence indicating she was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

3.  The applicant received UCMJ punishment under Article 15 for wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21, failure to go to her appointed place of duty, and driving with a suspended license.  The applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  Therefore, she is not entitled to an upgrade of her discharge.

4.  The available evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service.



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)                                         AR20110003141



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110003141



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1