IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 17 April 2012 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110020492 


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 undesirable discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant states she does not believe the record to be in error, she just did not know what she was doing and she made a mistake by not staying in the service.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).

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 25 December 1970, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 71B (Clerk Typist).

3.  On 12 October 1971, she was absent without leave and remained absent until 8 March 1976.

4.  Court-martial charges were preferred on 12 March 1976.

5.  On 16 March 1976 after consulting with counsel and being advised of her rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  She acknowledged that if her request were accepted, she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and be furnished a UD Certificate.  She acknowledged that such a discharge would deprive her of many or all of her benefits as a veteran and she could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if she received a UD.

6.  On 19 March 1976, the discharge authority approved her request and directed her discharge with a UD.

7.  The applicant was discharged on 7 April 1976.  She completed 10 months and 14 days of creditable service with 4 years, 4 months and 26 days (1610 days) of lost time.

8.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statutory limit for review.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 
The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.  Paragraph 3-7c states a discharge UOTHC is issued when there is one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from conduct expected of a Soldier.  Paragraph 3-7c(7) specifically addresses characterization of UOTHC for discharges issued under the provisions of chapter 10.

	b.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of her discharge is commensurate with her overall record of military service.

2.  By her own admission, the applicant does not believe there was an error in her discharge.  Her limited period of creditable service is devoid of any indication of service so significant that any other discharge is warranted.

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 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)                                         AR20110020492



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020492



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1