IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130019525 


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 discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  She was 2 months pregnant and was refused a pregnancy discharge due to a dispute she had with her commander.

	b.  She was subjected to "CS" gas without a gas mask during her pregnancy and she was treated with no respect by the captain.

	c.  The captain made up minor infractions to release her from the military and she was young and accepted his offer.

	d.  She lost her GI Bill and transportation pay due to her commander's dislike for her.

	e.  She does not feel she deserved the discharge she received or the reduction in rank.

	f.  She was sexually harassed, but she never pressed charges because she tried to be a team player.

	g.  She paid into her college fund and it was all forfeited due to her commander's belligerent behavior.

	h.  She is now a nurse and she would like to give back to the veterans who served our country.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 28 September 1987.  She completed training as a unit supply specialist.  She was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 28 March 1988 and she was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 1 August 1988.

3.  The applicant was counseled on five separate occasions between 4 August 1988 and 27 December 1988 for the following offenses:

* missing formation
* lying to her commander 
* writing and passing checks with insufficient funds
* being delinquent in rent payment
* demonstrating poor and unsatisfactory performance

4.  She accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four separate occasions between 16 August 1988 and 22 August 1989 for the following offenses:

* being absent without leave
* uttering bad checks
* being disrespectful to her superior commissioned officer
* disobeying a lawful order from her superior commissioned officer
* failing to go to her appointed place of duty
* failing to repair and failing to execute her duties correctly

5.  On 3 August 1989, the applicant was reprimanded for failing to execute her duties correctly as the charge-of-quarters runner, failing to return to duty, and failing to perform her arms room check.

6.  On 25 September 1989, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for discharge for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12a.  She acknowledged receipt of the notification and she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 4 October 1989 and directed the issuance of a general discharge.  On 13 October 1989, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, due to misconduct – minor disciplinary infractions.  She completed 2 years and 16 days of net active service during this period.

8.  The available records do not show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 
15-year statute of limitations.

9.  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 members for minor disciplinary infractions or a pattern of misconduct.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions 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.

	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's contentions have been noted.  However, her contentions are not supported by the evidence of record.

2.  The available records show she accepted NJP on four separate occasions for her acts of misconduct and she was counseled on five occasions.  Considering the nature of her offenses and her numerous acts of misconduct, it does not appear that the type of discharge she received was too harsh or unjust.

3.  According to Army Regulation 635-200, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under the provisions of chapter 14.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Obviously, the separation authority took into consideration her overall record of service when he directed the issuance of a general discharge.

4.  The type of discharge she received appropriately reflects her overall record of service.

5.  In view of the foregoing, 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)                                         AR20130019525



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130019525



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1