IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  10 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001465 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she does not claim the record is in error or unjust.  She made a huge mistake when she elected to leave the military.  It was her own fault.  Since that time she has attempted to live her life in an honorable fashion as well as in a patriotic way.  She has never attempted to hide her discharge from those around her who might learn from her mistake, but she would like to provide an example to those same people of the importance of an honorable discharge by requesting this action. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty); marriage certificate; decree for dissolution of marriage; a character reference from Ms Debra L. W____, Principal, Eastview Elementary School, Connersville, IN; and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Forms 21-4138 (Statement on Support of Claim) from:

* Mr Jon D. B____ and Mr John W. B____, previous employers
* Mr John J. H____, AVP, The Fifth Third Bank, Connersville, IN
* Ms Aletia S____, former supervisor
* Ms Terri S____, business associate 
* Ms Debra D____, business associate
* Ms Beverly F____, business associate and personal friend
* Mr Andrew J. B____, former co-worker
* Ms Linda I____, former co-worker
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 13 December 1978.  She completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76D (Materiel Supplyman).  

3.  On 29 June 1979, charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 April to 25 June 1979.

4.  She consulted with counsel and she voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She acknowledged she understood the elements of the charges against her and admitted she was guilty of at least one of the offenses which authorized a punitive discharge.  She also acknowledged she understood she might receive a discharge UOTHC, which would deprive her of many or all Army benefits, and she might be ineligible for veterans' benefits administered by the VA.  She acknowledged she understood she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if she were issued a discharge UOTHC.  She also indicated she had received legal advice, but her request for discharge had been made voluntarily and it reflected her own free will.

5.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of her voluntary request for discharge with the issuance of a UOTHC character of service.  The separation authority approved the recommendation on 16 July 1979.

6.  On 23 July 1979, the applicant was so discharged.  She had completed 
4 months and 26 days of net active service.  

7.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge.

8.  In support of her request, she provided several character references which describe her as an honest, hardworking, dependable employee, and an honorable business associate and caring person.  

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

	a.  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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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.

   c.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case, which are that she abdicated her sworn oath to serve and rendered no significant service. 

2.  The letters of support provided by the applicant were noted.  However, the applicant's post-service accomplishments are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her discharge.

3.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with legal counsel, tends to show she wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge she might have received.  Her service was characterized by the nature of her offenses and the circumstances of her separation and does not warrant an upgrade to honorable or general.

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)                                         AR20100027085



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001465



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1