BOARD DATE:	  12 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130005769 


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 makes no additional statement.

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and five letters 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 on 2 July 1985.  She successfully complete training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 75D (Personnel Records Specialist).
3.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 8 December 1988, shows charges were preferred against her for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 19 September 1988 through 28 November 1988.

4.  On 9 December 1988, after consulting with counsel, she submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel).  She indicated in her request that she understood she could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an undesirable discharge certificate, that she could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that she could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and that she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  She admitted she was guilty of the charge against her or a lesser included offense.  She also acknowledged that she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She elected not to submit a statement in her behalf.

5.  On 20 January 1989, the appropriate authority approved her request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that she be given an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 9 February 1989, she was discharged accordingly.  She had completed 3 years, 4 months, and 29 days of creditable active service with 71 days of lost time.

6.  The applicant provides five letters of support that characterize her as reliable, hard working, and a caring and responsible asset to her community.  

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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, at any time after the charges have been preferred, 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. 

8.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 request for an upgrade of her discharge was carefully considered and it was determined there is insufficient evidence to support her request.

2.  The applicant's records show she had a lengthy period of AWOL.  As a result, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are required for the issuance of a honorable or general discharge.

3.  The applicant provided letters of support attesting to her reliability and hard work and to her being caring and responsible asset to her community.  However, post-service conduct and achievements alone are not normally a sufficient basis for upgrading a discharge.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no 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)                                         AR20130005769





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130005769



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1