IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013860 


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 other than honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

 	a.  an injustice can be the result of the flawed human decision making that the system is supposed to protect against.

	b.  when she volunteered to join the Army, she was a young wife, and she and her husband aspired to retire from the Army.  They were instructed by their recruiter that if they were married, the Army promised that they would be stationed no more than 50 miles away from one another.  When basic training was complete, they were excited about their journey.  She had hoped to become a drill sergeant.

	c.  the first injustice occurred when they received orders, her husband was stationed at Fort Ord, CA and she was assigned to Fort Irwin, CA, which was 250 miles apart.  In hopes that this issue would eventually be resolved she maintained her commitment to the Army.  Eventually, her husband was sent to Germany without her.  She anticipated her orders would eventually send her to Germany, but the orders never came.  She felt betrayed, lonely, and swindled.  When she finally arrived in Germany, her husband was sent home.


	d.  the stress from being away from her husband the first time was enough for her to determine she didn't want to take that chance again.  The Army had already proved that they weren't concerned with family or the promises that were made.  She felt like she didn't have a choice, she had to decide if she wanted to be with her husband or continue to work for an employer that was not concerned with her mental or emotional state.  There was a breakdown in the system.  Her discharge rating is the result of that breakdown.        

3.  The applicant provides a character reference letter.

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 30 September 1987 for a period of 4 years.  She completed her training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 92Y (unit supply specialist).  She arrived in Germany on 10 March 1989.   

3.  On 12 February 1990 she went absent without leave (AWOL) and returned to military control on 30 June 1994.  On 8 July 1994, charges were preferred against her for the AWOL period.

4.  On 7 July 1994, she consulted with counsel and requested discharge 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.  She acknowledged that by submitting her request for discharge she was guilty of a charge against her that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She indicated in her request she understood she might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate, she might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration she might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and she might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  She acknowledged she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  She elected to make a statement in her own behalf.  In summary, she stated:

* she went AWOL because she and her husband were promised to be stationed together which never happened
* her husband was chaptered out of the Army
* she married her husband to be with him
* she left to be with him

5.  On 22 August 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

6.  On 14 September 1994, she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She completed 2 years, 6 months, and 27 days of creditable active service with 1599 days of lost time.

7.  There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  She provides a character reference letter from her pastor who attests:

* the applicant is kind, dependable, and well regarded among her peers
* she made a series of poor decisions in 1992
* she has attained a well-respected job
* she has continued her steps toward a college education
* she continues to participate in community services conducted by her church
* she is remorseful for what she did
* she deserves a second chance 

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

	a.  Chapter 10 provides 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 character reference letters submitted on behalf of the applicant failed to show her discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  Her record of service included a lengthy AWOL period (1599 days).  As a result, her record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

3.  Her voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant an honorable or a general 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)                                         AR20130013860





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013860



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1