IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  13 March 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130012205 


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 discharge under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she had a one-time positive urinalysis test.

	a.  She states she was wrong but was told that it would "go away" if she would testify against the command sergeant major (CSM) for sexually abusing her, even though he did not do so.  She was pressured because they wanted to prosecute the CSM for something.  Because her parents were alcoholics, she made the wrong choice.  Her husband talked her into taking the pressure away in another way.  She had three urinalysis tests.  She had no positive tests prior to this, showing she did not abuse drugs.

	b.  She states she was told she would be discharged because she did not help prosecute the CSM.  The CSM was prosecuted without her lie anyway.  Another Soldier had sexually abused her, but no one wanted to hear about that.  She was charged with dereliction of duties and was going to be tried by a summary court-martial; however, in the end she accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP).  She was then reassigned to another unit where her supervisor was the Soldier who had sexually abused her.  The CSM suspected sexual abuse and called her into his office and questioned her about it.  She was again reassigned, this time under the supervision of the CSM.  She contends that the unit must have known about the Soldier who abused her because he was reassigned to the United States for a "family emergency."  She had great respect for the CSM.  He protected her.  She did not receive any special treatment.  This was the complete opposite from what she had received from her unit.  They wanted to prosecute the CSM and did not care if it took her lying to do it.

	c.  She states she was ashamed of her unit and wanted to get out.  They found a way to pressure her and get her out.  She was a proud Soldier who tried her very best to excel.  She was cheated out of her career.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of 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.  On 18 May 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed training as an administrative specialist.  She was promoted to sergeant with a date of rank of 7 November 1985.  On 2 September 1987, she reenlisted in the Regular Army.

3.  On 11 August 1989, the applicant accepted NJP for dereliction of duties by failing to secure the office.

4.  On 14 September 1990, the applicant accepted NJP for the wrongful use of marijuana.

5.  On 7 October 1990, the applicant's commander recommended her separation from the service for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, due to abuse of illegal drugs.  The basis for this action was the applicant's positive urinalysis test on 27 July 1990.

6.  The applicant consulted with counsel concerning her rights.  She elected to appear before a board of officers and not to make a statement in her own behalf.

7.  On 11 December 1990, a board of officers convened to consider whether the applicant should be separated from the service.  The board recommended her separation with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  On 11 December 1990, the appropriate authority approved the board's recommendation for discharge and directed her separation with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 9 January 1991, the applicant was accordingly discharged.  She completed a total of 9 years, 7 months, and 22 days of creditable active duty service.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge.

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

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.

	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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her general discharge should be upgraded to honorable because she was cheated out of her career.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant makes several allegations against personnel in her former unit but has not provided any documentary evidence of any wrongdoing by any other person or that such wrong doing was the cause for her own misconduct and administrative discharge.

4.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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 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)                                         AR20130012205



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130012205



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1