IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE  22 July 2014:

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130021184 


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 that she believes:

	a.  She was neither treated fairly nor given due process.  She was sent to the local judge advocate general’s (JAG) office and an officer there requested she be sent to his office to complete her last four months of service.  Her first sergeant refused due to his prejudices.

	b.  She was punished for reporting the many sexual attacks she endured at the hands of her fellow Soldiers.  She was raped, hit, slapped, passed around, and harassed daily.  The prejudices of the commanding officers allowed this behavior.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge).

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 18 April 1989.  She held military occupational specialty 16T (Patriot Missile Crewmember).

3.  Her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows in:

	a.  item 5 (Oversea Service) she served in Germany and Saudi Arabia;

	b.  item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns), she was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze service stars, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and

	c.  item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), the highest rank/grade she attained was specialist (SPC)/E-4.

4,  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on:

	a.  18 October 1992, for failing to obey a lawful order by having a visitor after visitation hours; and 

	b.  29 October 1992, for failing to obey a lawful order by wrongfully consuming an alcoholic beverage during pre-deployment.

5.  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.  The commander stated the applicant had failed to obey lawful orders on two occasions, had received several notices for checks totaling more than $300 written without sufficient funds to cover them, and a notice for failure to pay a just debt.

6.  A mental evaluation and physical examination conducted in conjunction with the separation action cleared the applicant for separation.

7.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification action and consulted with counsel.  She submitted a statement on her own behalf in which she requested an honorable discharge.  She offered explanations for the two NJP actions.  The issue of $300 worth of checks that she wrote happened because her boyfriend unexpectedly withdrew money from her account.  She eventually paid for every check and was not punished.  She further stated that she was a single parent of a nine-month old child and her enlistment would be up in five months.  She intended to use her education benefits to obtain a nursing degree.  She did well in all her training and deployed to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

8.  The applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action and the battalion commander recommended a general discharge.

9.  On 15 December 1992, the separation authority approved the separation and directed a general discharge.  On 23 December 1992, the applicant was accordingly discharged.

10.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged for misconduct with her service characterized as under honorable conditions.  She had completed 3 years, 8 months, and 6 days of creditable active duty service.

11.  There is no available evidence showing she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge. 

12.  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 misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), 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.  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 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.  Unfortunately, the applicant did not provide any evidence to substantiate any of her assertions. 

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant had committed serious offenses.  Accordingly, her commander initiated separation action against her.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant appear to have been fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.


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)                                         AR20120009372



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130021184



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1