BOARD DATE:	  3 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110024035 


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 to upgrade her character of service from under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  She states she served her country honorably and feels that her current character of service is unjust and should be changed.  The time and place of her discharge were such that she did not contest or argue the characterization of service for fear of retaliation from her Women's Army Corps (WAC) commander.  

3.  She feels that she was given a General Discharge, under honorable conditions because she was not able to be promoted to the rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3.  The reasons she was not promoted were due to general disagreements on dress code with her commanding officer, who was also in the WAC.  The length of her dress was in accordance with the U.S. Army Dress Code policy at the time.

4.  She states that her immediate commander (the post commander) recommended she be promoted but her WAC commander refused to sign the paperwork.  She feared she would be retaliated against by her WAC commander had she accepted the promotion from the post commander. 

5.  The applicant provides her 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.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 January 1971.  After completion of training, she was awarded military occupational specialty 71B (Clerk Typist) and was eventually reassigned to Company A, (WAC), Headquarters, Fort Huachuca, AZ on 12 June 1971.

3.  A Standard Form (SF) 513 (Clinical Record – Consultation Sheet) shows the applicant was screened by a mental hygiene consultant on 4 October 1971.  The hygienist noted the following:

	a.  She initially had complained of tension and migraine headaches with mild depression.  She was referred to Internal Medicine where a complete examination was performed on her.  The results of the examination indicated no physical reasons for the headaches.  

	b.  The applicant was noted to have used headaches and other such emotional tools to control people and situations.  The consultant stated the applicant was not mentally ill and cleared her psychiatrically for any action deemed appropriate by her command.  She and her husband had been seen jointly for marital problems.  A recommendation was made that the command place strict limits on her, so she would not be allowed to profit any secondary gains in connection with her alleged migraine headaches. 

4.  A statement from the Fort Huachuca Mental Hygiene Consultation and Outpatient Services, dated 3 November 1971 shows the following:

	a.  She was seen on various occasions since 3 September 1971 by members of that facility.  She had a long history of acting out and attempts had been made to try to help her.  She was unmotivated for any help.

	b.  She was diagnosed with a unstable emotional personality and was noted not to be mentally ill.  The psychiatrist recommended, in light of her suicide gesture and her attempts at manipulation, that her security clearance be denied.  

5.  On 4 February 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed on the applicant for failing to go at the prescribed time to her appointed place of duty on 31 January 1972.  

6.  On 8 February 1972, the applicant's unit commander recommended that she be separated under the provisions of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) as stated in Department of the Army (DA) Message 242110Z, September 1971, Subject:  Extension of QMP to grade E-1 to E-2.  

     a.  The separation was recommended because of her failure to demonstrate adequate potential for advancement to the grade of PFC/E-3.  The unit commander stated the applicant had been in the service for nearly 12 months and was promoted to rank/pay grade of private/E-2 in April 1971 and had not been promoted above that grade since. 

     b.  She had exhibited substandard performance, apathy, and a genuine desire to be discharged from the service.  After she had been informed of the discharge action, she had become progressively lax in complying with military regulations and responsibilities.  

     c.  The applicant had been counseled and was knowledgeable of the impact of failure to demonstrate the standards of conduct and ability required by the U.S. Army.

     d.  A General Discharge, under honorable conditions was recommended due to her substandard performance and unsatisfactory character of service.  The applicant's constant need for counseling and guidance were a great hindrance to the mission of the unit. 

7.  On 8 February 1972, the applicant submitted a verification of counseling received and noted that since her arrival at Fort Huachuca, she had been counseled several times by her company commander, battalion commander and the Headquarters commandant regarding her conduct and job efficiency.  

     a.  She stated she had been advised of what she should do to become more successful in the Army and she had been counseled concerning the reasons for not being promoted. 

     b.  She requested that separation action be taken and she was fully aware of the impact of failure to demonstrate the standards of conduct and the ability required by the U.S. Army.  She also understood that if she was separated as requested, she would be denied enlistment or reenlistment privileges with a waiver provision. 

8.  On 16 February 1972, the applicant’s battalion commander recommended approval of her separation for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement and for her negative attitude toward the Army.    

9.  On 23 February 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  She was accordingly discharged in pay grade E-2 on 13 March 1972 and issued a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  Item 11c (Reason and Authority) of her DD Form 214 contains the entry, “AR (Army Regulation) 635-200, SPN (Separation Program Number) 430."

11.  Her service record does not show she received any special awards or recognition.  

12.  Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  That program was based on the premise that reenlistment was a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement met Army standards.  It was designed to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to non-progressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  DA (DAPE-MPP) MSG 242110Z, September 
1971, extended the provisions of the QMP to allow for the early separation of Soldiers in the grades of E-1 and E-2 who had failed to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement.  

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

     a.  Paragraph 13-2a(6) provides for discharge of individuals if their potential for advancement or leadership is unlikely.  Paragraph 13-10 of this regulation provides the service of Soldiers separated under this authority will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records.

     b.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  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 inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows she had been diagnosed with an unstable emotional personality and was noted not to be mentally ill.  She had been seen on several occasions by mental hygiene.  She had a long history of acting out and in order to manipulate others.  

2.  The evidence further shows she accepted NJP for failing to go to her place of duty at the prescribed time.

3.  In February 1972, her unit commander recommended that she be separated under the provisions of the QMP as stated in DA Message 242110Z, September 1971, with a General Discharge.  The unit commander stated she had counseled and advised the applicant of the conditions which jeopardized her promotion advancement.  The evidence of record indicates she had been counseled not just by her company commander but also by her battalion commander and the Headquarters commandant.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized the applicant's rights.  Although her DD Form 214 does not list the reason for discharge, the proper reason was annotated in the separation packet and the applicant acknowledged she understood the reason at the time.  

5.  As a result, she was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations and policies then in effect.  

6.  Her record of service shows she did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for an honorable discharge.  Her entire record of Army service was considered.  She has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show her discharge should be upgraded.   

7.  In view of the foregoing, she is not entitled to the requested relief.    



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)                                         AR20110024035





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110024035



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1