IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    6 March 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110017514 


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.  The applicant states she had difficulty as a wheel vehicle mechanic in a predominantly male unit which harbored negative attitudes toward women.  Her company commander sent her to the battalion to work as a typist, but she was not allowed to change her military occupational specialty (MOS) to typist and she was told she would still be responsible for maintaining proficiency in her MOS.  She considered this a nearly impossible task considering she was no longer working in her MOS.  Due to these issues, she requested to be discharged from service and she was given a general discharge with the assurance it would be upgraded 5 to 7 years later.  She further states she served her country honorably without incident and she has been an upstanding citizen since her discharge.

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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 September 1977 at age 19.  She completed training and she was awarded MOS 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

3.  Evidence shows the applicant was advanced to the rank/grade private (PV2)/E-2 while in basic training.  Upon completion of advanced individual training she was stationed at Fort Knox, KY.  On 13 April 1978, she married a service member.  While assigned to the 30th Ordnance Detachment, Fort Knox, performing duties as a wheel vehicle mechanic, she was advanced with waiver to the private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 19 May 1978.  Her awards and decorations include the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
(M-16).  In addition, she received two letters of appreciation, dated 1 June and
1 August 1978 respectively.

4.  Her record contains a consultation report, dated 2 October 1978, which shows the applicant was evaluated by the Fort Knox Mental Hygiene Consultation Service during the period 13 July - 27 September 1978.  In the report an Army psychologist’s impression stated the applicant appeared mildly depressed over the stability of her marriage and the length of time she had remaining until her discharge.  Since her husband was leaving the service within a few weeks, her depression intensified and her attitude and motivation decreased.  The psychologist further opined the applicant’s work performance would probably deteriorate and because of her dependency needs, it was unlikely that counseling alone would prevent this maladjustment.  He recommended the applicant’s commander consider an expeditious discharge and that she not be sent to Europe, and thus separated from her husband.  The psychologist further recommended the command continue to demand acceptable work performance from the applicant and that she continue to receive therapy.

5.  Her record contains a memorandum from the battalion chaplain who interviewed her on 1 November 1978.  The chaplain stated the applicant encountered severe emotional problems which were most likely due to her perception of the Army and how her marriage fit in.  Based on observation and counseling, the chaplain recommended the applicant be separated from the 


Army.  He further stated her continued presence would result in further emotional stress and instability which could lead to a nervous breakdown.

6.  On 6 November 1978, her immediate commander advised her that he intended to initiate action to discharge her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)) for exhibiting an inability to adjust to military life, being apathetic towards her duties, and displaying increased hostility towards the service.  He recommended a general discharge.

7.  On 6 November 1978, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed separation action and consulted with legal counsel.  She was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, and the effect on future enlistment in the Army, the possible effects of a general discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to her.  She voluntarily consented to this separation action and she declined to make a statement in her own behalf.  She further acknowledged that she understood if she were issued a general discharge, she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.

8.  Her record contains a Characterization of Service Checklist for Administrative Discharge Actions, dated 7 November 1978, that was completed by her immediate commander.  The checklist states the member’s record of current enlistment or current period of service will be carefully screened for data which would have a bearing on the final decision as to the type of discharge to be awarded.  The commander notes the applicant had no record of demotion, lost time, disciplinary action under Article 15, or convictions by court-martial.  However, the checklist does show the applicant was twice advanced and she received favorable communications or recommendations in the form of two letters of appreciation.  Her record is void of any negative performance or rehabilitative counseling.

9.  On 14 November 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge action and directed that she be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  On 17 November 1978, she was accordingly discharged.  The applicant's
DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows she completed 1 year, 2 months, and 12 days of creditable active military service with no time lost.

10.  There is no indication she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.


11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the EDP.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.  No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.

12.  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.

13.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered.

2.  The evidence of record reveals a Soldier who was advanced with waiver to PFC/E-3.  In addition, she received two letters of appreciation, one as late as August 1978.  On 6 November 1978, her immediate commander initiated separation action under the EDP.  There is no record of any negative performance or professional counseling, an attempt to rehabilitate the applicant, nor is there any record of nonjudicial punishment.

3.  Although there appears to be no error in her separation processing, the ABCMR has the discretion to upgrade the applicant’s discharge as a matter of 


equity.  Her separation pursuant to paragraph 5-31 was based upon exhibiting an inability to adjust to military life, being apathetic towards her duties, and displaying increased hostility towards the service.  It is apparent the applicant was suffering with a great amount of marital and emotional stress as documented by her battalion chaplain and medical professionals, but it did not result in misconduct.  In fact, three months prior to the commander initiating separation action, the applicant received a letter of appreciation.

4.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  Given that her record is void of nonjudicial punishment and any negative counseling statements, a general discharge may have been overly harsh.

5.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to upgrade her general discharge to an honorable discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

___X____  ___X____  ___X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  voiding her current DD Form 214 with a general character of service;

	b.  issuing her a new DD Form 214 with an honorable character of service; and


	c.  issuing her an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 17 November 1978, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date she currently holds.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20110017514



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110017514



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1