`
		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    30 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130000463 


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 upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states she served in the Regular Army from February 1978 to February 1981 with honorable service.  She reenlisted in 1981 and she was discharged in 1983 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She takes full responsibility for her actions.  She made a mistake under financial and pressured circumstances.  She was afraid and she did not know what to do.  She regrets her actions and she appeals to this Board to forgive her mishap by upgrading her discharge. 

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* State criminal record check
* multiple certificates of completion of various training
* multiple letters of support/character reference letters
* multiple certificates of training and/or appreciation

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 (RA) on 21 February 1978 and she held military occupational specialty 54E (Chemical Operations Specialist).  She reenlisted in the RA on 6 May 1980 and she served in Germany from 9 August 1980 to 17 March 1983. 

3.  She was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar. 

4.  On 3 January 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for: 

* one specification of assaulting another Soldier by kicking him with her foot
* one specification of being drunk and disorderly at the Military Police station
* one specification of stealing a check from another Soldier
* two specifications of stealing monies from the American Express Corporation
* four specifications of forgery and falsely making a check with wrong words and figures and with intent to defraud

5.  On 24 February 1983, she consulted with legal counsel and she was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge, the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions if her request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial were approved, and of the procedures and rights available to her.  Following consultation with legal counsel, she requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.

6.  In her request for discharge, she indicated:

* she was making this request of her own free will and she had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person
* she understood that by requesting discharge she was admitting guilt to the charges against her or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions
* she acknowledged she understood if her discharge request were approved she could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and she could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* she acknowledged she understood she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* she stated that under no circumstances did she desire further rehabilitation and she had no desire to perform further military service

7.  On 28 February 1983, her immediate, intermediate, and senior commanders recommended approval of her request for discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

8.  On 4 March 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 21 March 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

9.  The DD Form 214 the applicant was issued shows she was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  This form shows she completed 4 years, 8 months, and 1 day of creditable active service.

10.  On 19 April 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed her case and denied her petition for an upgrade. 

11.  She submitted:

	a.  A state criminal record check, dated 20 December 2012, that shows a minor traffic offense (was dismissed).

	b.  Multiple certificates of training and/or appreciation showing completion or award of Hospice Volunteer Training, Protecting God's Children Workshop, Commitment to Service Certificate, Service Award Certificate, Cosmetic Art Certificate, 5-year Service Award, and a Certificate of Excellence. 

	c.  Character reference letters and/or letters of support, one of which is from a former supervisor who opines the applicant was in good standing while employed in his company from 1989 through 1995, and a second letter from a volunteer manager who comments on the applicant's volunteer services/hours to individuals with terminal illness. 

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth 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 under other than honorable conditions 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 provides that 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 record shows she was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, her discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service.

2.  The applicant's multiple certificates of appreciation and/or training as well as her post-service community standing are noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating in granting her the requested relief.
3.  Based on her record of indiscipline, specifically the seriousness of the charges (assault, larceny, and forgery), the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered her service unsatisfactory.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant an honorable or a general 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)                                         AR20130000463





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130000463



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1