IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 27 February 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130009767
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 general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.
2. She admits she was wrong and apologizes for her wrongdoing, but she doesn't know what her offense was.
3. She provides her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
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 September 1988.
3. On 22 November 1991, she was barred from reenlistment. Her DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate) indicates she received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for the following four offenses:
* Failure to report to appointed place of duty (two separate occasions)
* Failure to adhere to the quiet hours policy
* Failure to adhere to the visitation policy
4. Her discharge packet is not available for review. However, her record contains a DD Form 214 that shows she was discharged on 13 July 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c for misconduct-commission of a serious offense with the issuance of a general under honorable conditions discharge. At the time of her discharge, she completed 3 years, 10 months, and 12 days of total active service.
5. Her service record does not indicate she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
6. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.
7. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states 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 service record shows she received a bar to reenlistment and four Article 15s for failure to report to appointed place of duty on two separate occasions, failure to adhere to the quiet hours policy, and failure to adhere to the visitation policy.
2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant's administrative discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
3. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. It appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant recommendation for a fully honorable discharge and characterized her service as under honorable conditions (general). She has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing her general discharge to fully honorable.
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) AR20130009767
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130009767
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021184
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 25 November 1992, her immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12(c) for misconduct by commission of a serious offense. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140007381
The applicant requests that her general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 31 August 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, with issuance of a GD. Her overall record of service was considered and resulted in the issuance of a GD instead of the UOTHC discharge that is normally appropriate for members separated for misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140007381
The applicant requests that her general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 31 August 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, with issuance of a GD. Her overall record of service was considered and resulted in the issuance of a GD instead of the UOTHC discharge that is normally appropriate for members separated for misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021452
On 23 April 2003, her immediate commander initiated discharge action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, based on her positive urinalysis for methamphetamine and dextro-methamphetamine on two occasions on 5 September 2002 and 21 October 2002. On 19 October 2009, the Army Discharge Review Board denied her request for an upgrade of her discharge. "Processed for separation" meant that separation action...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021793
On 13 June 1994, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-12b, based on an established pattern of misconduct. On 20 June 1994, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharged from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002446
On 23 January 2006, the commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). On 28 April 2006, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense). There is also no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that would...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015113
Her record contains a DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 18 October 1988, which shows she was counseled regarding payment of an outstanding debt in the amount of $420.00 and the fact that she would not be granted stateside leave until she paid the debt. On 18 September 1989, the applicant's unit commander notified her that he was initiating action which could result in separation from the Army with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003298
The applicant requests an upgrade of her general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). On 8 November 1991, her company commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of her GD.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02696
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of the disability at the time of separation. The commander’s statement dated 30 October 2007,7 months before...
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00407
(EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of her application. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. During the list...