IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  9 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110015523 


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, her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show:

* an honorable discharge
* her rank/grade as specialist four/E-4

2.  The applicant states:

* she was an active Soldier during the period 1985 through 1987
* she was only 23 years old at the time and had 3 children at home
* she left for the Service to provide for them and she was very sad
* she was stationed in Korea during the period 1986 through 1987
* she was very depressed and homesick 
* she started to feel different and started to hear voices
* she did not know what was happening to her and she started to use marijuana
* she is trying to establish service-connection
* she did not let doctors know what was going on with her because everything was happening so fast and by the time she realized what was happening, she was already put out of the Service
* she requests the Board be merciful and allow her to establish service-connection so she can receive full benefits
* since discharge she has gone through homelessness, different programs, and finally found one that realized she was considered disabled
* she is now under a doctor's care, taking medication, and getting her life back together

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statements
* DD Form 214

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 22 March 1985.  She completed training and was awarded military occupational 36C (Wire System Installer).  The highest rank/grade she attained while on active duty was specialist four/E-4.

3.  Item 5 (Oversea Service) of the applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows she served in the Republic of Korea during the period 2 September 1985 through 5 September 1986.

4.  Records show that on 6 May and 22 July 1987, the applicant tested positive for the presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

5.  On 25 April and 22 June 1987, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.

6.  The available records show the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on two occasions for the offenses indicated:

* on 18 June 1987, for wrongfully using marijuana between 21 April 1987 and 6 May 1987, and failing to obey an order not to drive her private automobile until she obtained a civilian driver's license
* on 14 August 1987, for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on 21, 22, 27 July, and 31 August  1987
* on 8 September 1987, for wrongfully using marijuana between 7 July 1987 and 22 July 1987

7.  The following is a list of the applicant's reduction in rank/grade:

* on 18 June 1987, a reduction in rank from specialist four/E-4 to private first class/E-3
* on 14 August 1987, a reduction in rank from private first class/E-3 to private/E-2
* on 8 September 1987, a reduction in rank from private first class/E-3 to private/E-1 

8.  On 1 October 1987, the applicant was notified by her commander of the intent to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for abuse of illegal drugs.

9.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and she was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the possible effects of a discharge, and of the rights available to her.

10.  On 14 October 1987, the applicant was discharged for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  She completed 2 years, 6 months, and 23 days of creditable active service.  

11.  The applicant's military personnel records do not show a medical condition that would have rendered her unfit.  There is no indication the applicant was referred to a medical evaluation board.  Additionally, the applicant's medical records are unavailable and documents indicate they are in  the custody of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

12.  The applicant provided a self-authored statement explaining her circumstances.

13.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  

15.  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.

16.  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.

17.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The separation document is to provide the individual with a complete and accurate documentary evidence of their military service.  The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty of more than 90 days to include attendance at basic and advanced training and is prepared for all personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from active duty.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge and restoration of her prior rank was carefully considered.

2.  Although the applicant contends she was sad, depressed and homesick, there is no evidence of her depression in her records nor did she provide any evidence of her depression.

3.  There is no evidence in the available record and the applicant did not provide any evidence which shows her discharge was in error or unjust.  Absent such evidence, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

4.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for an upgrade of a discharge solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.  Additionally, granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR.  Therefore, any questions regarding eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits should be addressed to the VA.

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)                                         AR20110015523



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110015523



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1