IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  22 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110019294 


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, also the rank on her DD Form 214 should be specialist (E4).

2.  The applicant states:

* she was not in the state of mind that she should have been when offered a way out of the military
* the article 15 was given during the troubled times of her marriage
* she listened to the advice of others in order to run from her situation
* she has learned from her past mistakes

3.  The applicant provides a self authored letter, 1 Article 15 and a 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 11 January 1989 for a period of
3 years.  She completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  The highest rank/grade she attained was Specialist (SPC)/E4.

3.  On 7 October 1993, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for willfully disobeying a noncommissioned officer.

4.  The applicant's record is void of a complete separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge processing.  It is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it must be presumed her discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service.

5.  The separation authority directed the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, Section1, paragraph 13-2 with a general discharge.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she was discharged on 21 January 1994 with a general discharge in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  She served 5 years, and 11 days of total active service.

6.  There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitation.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

8.  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 general discharge should be upgraded to honorable and her rank should be Specialist (E4), and her self-authored letter were carefully considered and found to be without merit.

2.  The DD Form 214 and Article 15, that the applicant submitted clearly shows that the applicant was reduced to the rank of private first class on 7 October 1993, and it was not suspended as stated by the applicant, which makes her rank on the DD Form 214 correct.  Additionally, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

3.  By regulation, commanders will separate a member under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, when in the commander's judgment the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

4.  Although the applicant's record is void of a complete separation packet, it is presumed that all requirements of law and applicable regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

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)                                         AR20110019294





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110019294



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1