IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 May 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120018760 


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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she is requesting her discharge be upgraded so she can qualify for, and receive, assistance in her home city and state.  She has been out of the Army since June 1983 and has requested financial and food assistance from the local Veterans Assistance Commission.  She was told they could not help her because her discharge was not honorable.

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 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's records show she enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 June 1981 and she held military occupational specialty 72E (Combat Telecommunications Center Operator).  On 16 April 1982, she was assigned to the 311th Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Campbell, KY.

3.  She received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), as follows on:

* 15 March 1983, for failing to report to her appointed place of duty on four separate occasions
* 30 March 1983, for failing to report to her appointed place of duty
* 4 April 1983, for failing to report to her appointed place of duty
* 9 May 1983, for failing to report to her appointed place of duty

4.  On 11 May 1983, she underwent a mental status evaluation.  The examining psychiatrist found her behavior was normal, she was fully alert and oriented, her mood was unremarkable, and her thinking process was clear and thinking content normal.  He cleared her for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command.

5.  On 19 May 1983, she was notified by her immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander stated the specific reasons were the four Article 15's she received, a dishonored check she wrote on 20 October 1982, and the fact that after counseling and UCMJ action her performance had not improved satisfactorily.  He further stated it was his opinion she would not develop into a satisfactory Soldier.  

6.  On 19 May 1983, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed discharge action.  She subsequently consulted with legal counsel and she was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effect on future enlistment in the Army, and the possible effects of a general discharge.  She was advised of the procedures and rights available to her.  She declined to submit a statement on her own behalf.

7.  On 9 June 1983, the separation authority approved her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 14 June 1983, she was discharged accordingly.

8.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with an under honorable conditions characterization of service.  She completed 2 years and 5 days of net active service.

9.  There is no indication she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

11.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant demonstrated she could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the NJP she received on four separate occasions for failing to report to her appointed place of duty on seven separate occasions.  Accordingly, her immediate commander initiated separation action against her.

2.  Her separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

3.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for the upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or other benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.

4.  Based on her overall record, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, she is not entitled to an honorable 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)                                         AR20120018760





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120018760



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1