BOARD DATE:	  4 December 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120011821 


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 to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she was very young at the time she was absent without leave (AWOL).  She had just completed advanced individual training and received orders to Monterey, California.  Her fiancé was injured at his work place and required surgery and rehabilitation.  She requested amendment of her orders to remain at Fort Eustis, Virginia.  When her battalion commander wouldn't help her, she left without approval.  After 28 days, she returned on her own and was placed on charge of quarters duty in 24-hour cycles.  This duty continued until 23 December “1983” when she was ordered to report to the battalion commander and given a discharge under other than honorable conditions without the presence of her counsel.

3.  The applicant provides four character reference letters in support of her request.

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's record shows she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program on 22 April 1985.  She was discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve and she enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 June 1985 at age 21 years and 1 month for a period of 4 years in pay grade E-3.  She did not complete initial entry training.

3.  On 3 October 1985, the applicant was reported as AWOL.  She surrendered to military authorities on 4 November 1985.

4.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 December 1985, shows the applicant was evaluated in conjunction with a discharge action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  The evaluation shows no evidence of any psychiatric condition which would warrant disposition through medical channels.  The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by her command.

5.  On 20 December 1985, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being AWOL from 4 October to 2 November 1985.

6.  The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge processing.  The record does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 December 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation     635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  Her DD Form 214 further shows she completed 5 months and 13 days of total active service with 27 days of lost time.

7.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and AWOL.  The regulation states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

9.  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.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 applicant's contentions and supporting documents were carefully considered and found to be insufficient in merit.  There is no evidence and the applicant did not present any evidence that shows the discharge she received was unjust.

2.  Records show the applicant was 21 years of age at the time of her offense.  There is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their terms of military service.

3.  The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge; however, the evidence of record shows the applicant received NJP for being AWOL.  This offense alone warranted her discharge.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case and that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

5.  The quality of the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty expected of Army personnel.  Her misconduct clearly diminished the overall quality of her service below that meriting an honorable or a general discharge.

6.  In view of the above, there is no basis for granting her 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 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)                                         AR20120011821



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120011821



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1