IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	    2 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130007623 


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 that her general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that she was discharged due to a sexual assault.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with her application. 

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 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 19 July 1978 for a period of 3 years and training as a field radio repairer.  She completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia on 22 September 1978 to attend advanced individual training (AIT).

3.  On 16 March 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant by the battalion commander for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 March to 16 March 1979.

4.  On 5 April 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant by the battalion commander for being AWOL from 20 March to 28 March 1979. 

5.  On 5 April 1979, the commander also notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) due to her inability to adapt socially to military life.  He cited the applicant’s disciplinary record and her failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions as the basis for his recommendation.

6.  The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel, voluntarily consented to the discharge, and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on    18 April 1979 and directed that she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  Accordingly, on 24 April 1979, she was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31.  She had served 8 months and 14 days of total active service and was still in a trainee status.

9.  There is no evidence in the available record to show that she ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  A review of her official records shows that during counseling the applicant revealed that she met a civilian downtown and wanted to live with him.  She indicated that she did not like the training and wanted to change to a clerk-typist.  She also expressed that she had no interest in continuing in training or in the Army.  She further stated that she did not know why the Army makes demands on her when she requires a specific reason for each order given.  The available evidence does not indicate she was involved in a sexual assault.


11.  The Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973.  In a message, dated 8 November 1974, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP.  The program provided for the separation of Soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the Army.  Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identified them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  Soldiers considered for separation under this expanded program had to agree to separation under this program.  Soldiers who did not agree to separation under this provision were not exempt from separation under another provision of the regulation.  An honorable or general discharge was required and there has never been any provision for an automatic upgrade of a discharge of less than fully honorable.

12.  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 applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of the applicant’s rights.  Accordingly, her discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  However, the evidence of record does not support her contentions and given the circumstances that are documented in her case, her service does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

3.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show otherwise, there appears to be no basis to grant her request for an upgrade of her 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)                                         AR20130007623



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130007623



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1