IN THE CASE OF

		BOARD DATE:   12 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130021303 


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 reconsideration of her request for an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

2.  The applicant states her discharge was based on her religious beliefs and is unjust.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

	a.  A letter, dated 25 November 2013, written to the Board; 

	b.  Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Amy memorandum, dated 
3 February 1983, showing her promotion to private first class (PFC)/E-3; 

	c.  Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 27-0820 (Report of General Information), dated 15 August 2013;

	d.  Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty);

	e.  Separation orders;

	f.  Several pages of her separation documentation;

	g.  DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation);

	h.  An Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) request and 21 August 1984 ADRB denial letter;

	i.  A letter from the Administrative Assistant, Faith Tabernacle Apostolic Church, dated 29 October 2013, with Articles of Faith attached; and  

	j.  Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.17 (Accommodation of Religious Practices within the Military Services), dated 10 February 2009.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120013312, dated 21 February 2013.

2.  As new evidence, the applicant provides a 29 October 2013 letter from the Administrative Assistant, Faith Tabernacle Apostolic Church with Articles of Faith attached.  The Articles state:  "Women are not to …wear men's apparel (including pants)…"  This is considered new evidence and will be considered by the Board.

3.  On 24 February 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed training and was transferred to Germany on 1 July 1981.  She was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 22 September 1982.

4.  She departed Germany on 21 December 1982 for assignment to Fort Riley, Kansas.

5.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's administrative discharge are not present in the available records because they were loaned to the VA in Wichita, KS on 13 July 1988.  (We do know that she was charged with direct disobedience of a lawful order of a captain.)

6.  However, the available evidence does show that on 27 July 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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.  In her request she indicated she was making the request of her own free will without coercion from anyone and that she was aware of the implications attached to her request.  She also admitted she was guilty of the charges against her or of lesser-included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She acknowledged she understood she could receive a UOTHC discharge and she might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  She submitted a statement on her own behalf in which she states that:

	a.  The U.S. Constitution and the Army give a person the right to practice any religion they choose as long as it doesn't interfere with the person's job.  She had come into the knowledge of the Bible that there are things she could not do, such as wearing pants.  This was not a rule or a standard of her church but came directly from the Bible.  She knew that the government had rule over her, but when the decision comes between man and God she was to obey God because the wrath of God was greater than the wrath of man.  If she was to wear pants again she would be resisting the power of God.

	b.  She submitted the statement requesting her past duty performance, appearance, and attitude be taken into consideration in deciding whether she should receive a UOTHC discharge or a general discharge.

7.  Her unit commander stated the applicant's continued presence within the division was an affront to military law and order and a detriment to the command due to the practices she was following in her new-found religion which conflicted with standards of discipline prescribed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and appropriate Army regulations.

8.  On 4 August 1983, the applicant was discharged.  Her DD Form 214 shows 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 a UOTHC discharge.  She had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 11 days of active service.

9.  On 21 August 1984, the ADRB denied her request for an upgrade of her discharge. 

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

	a.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  A discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate.

	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.

	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.

11.  DODI 1300.17, dated 10 February 2009, prescribes policy, procedures, and responsibilities for the accommodations of religious practices in the Military Services.  The policy states, in part, that the DOD places a high value on the rights of members of the military services to observe the tenets of their respective religions.  It is DOD policy that requests for accommodation of religious practices should be approved by commanders when accommodation will not have an adverse impact on mission accomplishment, military readiness, unit cohesion, standards, or discipline. 

12.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  Paragraph 2-9 states the ABCMR begins consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends her request for an upgrade of her discharge should be reconsidered.  

2.  The applicant's new evidence has been reviewed; however, it was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief in this case.  Her refusal to wear the uniform or to only wear a uniform of her choosing was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  Her willful disobedience of the order of a commissioned officer warranted trial by court-martial.  Furthermore, there is no evidence showing she requested relief from wearing uniform pants, nor has she ever said she made such a request.
3.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge are not available for review.  However, her DD Form 214 shows she was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120013312, dated 21 February 2013.



      __________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)                                         AR20120001118



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                       AR20130021303



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1