BOARD DATE: 10 January 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120011723
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 that her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states she never expressed that she did not want to be in the Army; however, the way her squad leader and platoon sergeant presented her concerns about her husband amounted to a fabricated way to get her discharged. She continues by stating she was cheated out of her career as a military police officer because she was young and did not know the questions to ask and she now needs her medical benefits.
3. The applicant provides no additional documents with her application.
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 applicants 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 applicants 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 22 September 1992 for a period of 5 years and training as a military police. She completed her one station unit training at Fort McClellan, Alabama.
3. She married on 22 February 1993 and on 28 February 1993 she was transferred to a Military Police Company in Berlin, Germany.
4. On 6 May 1993, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against her for disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer.
5. On 15 June 1993, the applicants commander notified her that he was initiating action to discharge her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He cited as the basis for his recommendation that she had repeatedly failed to go to her place of duty despite numerous counseling sessions, that she had failed her physical fitness test, that she failed to respond to rehabilitation attempts and had expressed that she did not desire to be rehabilitated, and that she lacked the potential for further training and becoming a satisfactory Soldier.
6. After consulting with counsel the applicant elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.
7. The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 28 June 1993 and directed that she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
8. Accordingly, she was discharged under honorable conditions on 8 July 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. She had served 9 months and 17 days of active service.
9. There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change an upgrade within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
10. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service. An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.
11. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicants rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. The applicants contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to her overall undistinguished record of service and repeated failure to go to her place of duty.
4. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any basis to grant her request for an upgrade of her discharge.
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) AR20120011723
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120011723
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000937
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show she was honorably discharged for medical reasons instead of administratively discharged with uncharacterized service. c. She was recommended for separation under the provisions of chapter 11 (Failure to Adapt) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) because of her demonstrated lack of motivation and her expressed desire to leave...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019294
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). 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014460
The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 8 September 1995, by amending item 26 (Separation Code) to show JET instead of JGA. Her DD Form 214 for this period shows the following entries: * Item 24 (Character of Service) Uncharacterized * Item 25 (Separation Authority) AR 635-200 (Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Personnel Separations)), Chapter 11 * Item 26 JGA * Item 28 (Narrative...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001775
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 05 MAY 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090001775 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects that she was released from active duty (REFRAD) under honorable conditions due to unsatisfactory performance. Accordingly, she was REFRAD under honorable conditions on 18 March 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010349
She was advised that she would be subject to separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance should she fail a second record APFT. On 6 November 1998, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command notified the applicant of her administrative removal from the promotion selection list based on her cancellation of ANCOC due to APFT failure. Military Personnel Message Number 93-164, dated 20 April 1993,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018892
He also requests that item 14 (Military Education) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to reflect the completion of his military training. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 13 August 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, entry-level status performance and conduct. The applicant's records show he was counseled on 3 August 1993 for separation under chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, and was separated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014350
The applicant did not provide any evidence. On 9 March 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions. Her general discharge is commensurate with her overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015723
There is no evidence in the available records to show that she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Chapter 13 states in pertinent part that initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test, unless the responsible commander chooses to impose a bar to reenlistment per Army Regulation 601-280...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019058
She received an honorable discharge from the Army National Guard and a general discharge for her service in the Regular Army. Her commander also recommended she receive a general discharge. The DD Form 214 she received shows she was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019034
The applicant requests, in effect, that her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show she was medically discharged vice separated while in an entry level status with uncharacterized service. The regulation requires uncharacterized service for separation under this chapter. The applicant requests, in effect, that her DD Form 214 be corrected to show she was medically discharged due to her service connected disability vice separated while in an...