IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130004393 


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 general discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* her discharge should be upgraded based on her medical issues for which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has now awarded service connection
* this shows her issues during her military service are directly related to things that were happening when she was discharged
* she was a model Soldier
* she did everything when she was asked
* she was not punished for anything
* she feels the discharge was unjust based on the Army's perception that she was not fit to continue

3.  The applicant provides:

* VA Rating Decision, dated 11 January 2013
* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States)





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 military records are not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the applicant's records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  Her DD Form 214 shows she enlisted in the Women's Army Corps on 21 July 1950 for a period of 3 years and she served as a teletype operator.

4.  Her record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge action.  However, her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged with a general discharge on 8 March 1951 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel – Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability).  She completed 7 months and 18 days of creditable active service.

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

6.  She provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 11 January 2013, which shows she was granted service connection for dysthymic disorder (claimed as depression) with generalized anxiety disorder (50%).  This decision states "Service connection for dysthymic disorder (claimed as depression) has been established as directly related to military service."   

7.  Army Regulation 615-369, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for inaptitude or unsuitability.  The regulation also provided that discharge for unsuitability would be effected when it was determined that an individual had demonstrated maladaptability for further military service for character and behavior disorder, mental deficiency, and enuresis.  The regulation also provided that when discharged because of inaptitude or unsuitability, a general discharge would be furnished.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation-Enlisted Personnel) governs the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

9.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition that was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends her discharge should be upgraded based on her medical issues for which the VA has now awarded service connection.  However, the rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  

2.  The applicant's available record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to her discharge from the Army.  However, her DD Form 214 confirms that she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 on 8 March 1951 with a general discharge.  

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary it must be presumed her separation processing was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Without the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed her characterization of service was commensurate with her overall record of service.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant 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)                                         AR20130004393





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004393



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1