IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	   29 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR201300004962


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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  She was not afforded proper legal counsel, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and she was having problems drinking a lot because she was so young and immature.

	b.  Her lawyer pushed her into a discharge for the good of the service instead of mental health care.

	c.  She is in need of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical care.

3.  The applicant provides a letter of support.

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 8 July 1986.  She was
19 years and 1 month old at the time of enlistment.  She held and served in military occupational specialty 75D (Personnel Records Specialist).

3.  The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), contains a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) issued to her on 9 May 1988.  It shows it was administered due to her being apprehended for drunk driving on 22 April 1988.

4.  The applicant's AMHRR is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding her separation processing.  However, her record contains a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows she was discharged 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, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.

5.  The available record is void of any medical treatment records or documents that indicate she was ever treated for a disabling medical or mental condition during her period of active service.

6.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 5-year statute of limitations.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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 contends her under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded because she was denied proper legal counsel, she was young and immature which resulted in her drinking problem, and she was pushed into her discharge for the good of the service by counsel.  There is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge.  It appears that she was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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.  The applicant is presumed to have, without coercion, voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, she would have admitted guilt and waived her opportunity to appear before a court-martial.  It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it must be presumed her discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service.

3.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows she suffered from a disqualifying mental or physical condition during her period of military service.  Further, her ability to complete 2 years of active duty service prior to the end of her initial enlistment confirms her age at that time did not affect her ability to effectively serve in the Army.

4.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or medical benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.  Additionally, the granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR.  Therefore, any questions regarding eligibility for health care and other benefits should be addressed to the VA.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20120020677



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004962



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1