BOARD DATE:	  21 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140003298 


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 (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  She states she desires an upgrade for "insurance purposes."  She was young and did not know she had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with flashbacks after returning from the Persian Gulf.  She saw and heard things constantly, and she thought she was going crazy.  She used drugs to try to quiet the voices and visions and stop the nightmares.  

3.  She provides no additional evidence in support of her request.

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 was born on 8 November 1968.  

3.  On 2 October 1986, she enlisted in the Regular Army at age 17.  After completing initial entry training, she was awarded military occupational specialty 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist).  Effective 1 July 1988, she was advanced to specialist four/E-4, which was the highest grade she held.  On 1 March 1990, she reenlisted.  

4.  Her record shows she was deployed to Saudi Arabia from 4 September 1990 to 30 March 1991.  

5.  A DA Form 3622-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 22 October 1991, shows she underwent a mental status evaluation as part of a physical examination for administrative discharge from the Army.  No mental health problems were seen that required treatment or disposition through medical channels.  She was cleared for any administrative and disciplinary action deemed appropriate by command.  

6.  On 24 October 1991, her battalion commander imposed nonjudicial punishment against her under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongfully using cocaine during the period 15 to 30 September 1991.  

7.  On 8 November 1991, her company commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense.  He stated the reason for the proposed action was her wrongful use of cocaine and that he was recommending she receive a GD.  He also informed her of her rights.  

8.  On 14 November 1991, she consulted with counsel who advised her of the basis for her contemplated separation and its effects and the rights available to her.  

9.  After consulting with counsel, she elected not to submit statements in her own behalf and waived her right to counsel.  She acknowledged she understood she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a GD were issued to her.  

10.  On 14 November 1991, her company commander recommended her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c.  Her battalion commander recommended approval and that she receive a GD.  
11.  On 5 December 1991, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed she receive a GD.  Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that on 12 December 1991 she was discharged in accordance with the separation authority's decision after completing 5 years, 2 months, and 11 days of net active service this period.  

12.  On 16 February 1995, the Chief, Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Branch, notified her that the ADRB had determined the characterization of the discharge she received was both proper and equitable.  The ADRB determined that the reason and authority for her discharge should be changed from "misconduct–commission of a serious offense" to "misconduct."  A DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) was issued to effect the change.  

13.  Her record does not show and she has not provided evidence showing she has ever been diagnosed with PTSD.  

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

	a.  Chapter 14 of the regulation deals with separation for various types of misconduct, which includes drug abuse, and provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service.  Individuals in pay grades E-5 and above must be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense.  Those in pay grades below E-5 may also be processed after a first drug offense and must be processed for separation after a second offense.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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 evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of her GD.

2.  The ABCMR does not upgrade discharges solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.
3.  She contends she was young.  Although she enlisted at 17 years of age, at the time of her misconduct she was 22 years of age.  There is no evidence indicating she was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

4.  The evidence shows she was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations, that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record supports the reason (as amended by the ADRB) and authority for her discharge.  

5.  Although a UOTHC discharge would normally have been appropriate, her chain of command recommended she receive a GD, which the separation authority approved.  There is no evidence of a mental health diagnosis that should have been considered as a mitigating factor then or that could be considered as a mitigating factor now.  She provides no evidence now that she has service-connected PTSD.  It is reasonable to presume a Soldier with her length of service would have been aware of the consequences of using cocaine and of the mental health resources available to assist her in dealing with any problems that arose after her return from the Persian Gulf.  

6.  Considering all the facts in this case, her GD was appropriate.  The available evidence is an insufficient basis upon which to grant the 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 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)                                         AR20140003298





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140003298



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1