IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  6 November 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005361 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  She believes that she did not have proper representation at the time the incident occurred.

   b.  She is a devout ordained minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a Christian woman who believes there is good in everyone.  She also believes that a punishment bestowed upon someone should only be severe if that individual has committed murder; is a pedophile, mobster, gangster, or bank robber; and distributed any drugs to people, especially young people.  Since she did not fit into any of these categories, she believes that the punishment she received was severe and without measure.

   c.  She ministers to people of all ethnic backgrounds and demographics.  Sometimes the pain and suffering of the actions of an individual requires him/her to seek professional counseling.  She also feeds, clothes, and teaches those who are in need of these services.  Sometimes when people are young they make mistakes, and you must attend to the needs of young people and not decide to throw them to the curb without listening, further investigating, or arriving at a conclusion about why he/she initiated the behavior.

   d.  She has been a devoted Christian woman for over 20 years and she is still learning.  She was severely punished while in the Regular Army (RA) living overseas in Germany over 25 years ago.  She did not receive proper representation nor was she able to seek a counselor to talk about what had taken place.  She volunteered to serve her country.  She was not given the opportunity to excel because the punishment did not fit the alleged offenses.

3.  The applicant provides three character reference letters.

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 provide in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of the cases 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 sufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the RA, in pay grade E-3, on 4 December 1979 at 21 years of age.  She was awarded military occupational specialty 16H (Air Defense Artillery Operations/Intelligence Assistant).  She arrived in Germany on or about 11 April 1980.

3.  On 3 July 1980, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested:

   a.  Discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial for the following preferred charges:

* failing to go to her appointed place of duty on 28 May 1980
* disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 28 May 1980
* being disrespectful to two NCOs on 28 May 1980
* wrongfully communicating a threat to an NCO on 28 May 1980
* wrongfully communicating a threat to a service member on 20 May 1980
* disobeying the lawful order of an NCO on 20 May 1980
* unlawfully striking another Soldier in the face with her hand on 14 May 1980

   b.  She stated she was making the request of her own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.  She acknowledged   she could be discharged UOTHC, furnished a UOTHC discharge, and the result of the issuance of such a discharge.  She waived her rights and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

4.  On 9 July 1980, the Staff Judge Advocate found no legal objection to approving the applicant's discharge.  He stated that the applicant's group command recommended approval of the applicant's request and issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

5.  On 9 July 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge and reduction to pay grade E-1.

6.  She was discharged accordingly on 28 July 1980.  She was credited with completing 7 months and 25 days of net active service.

7.  On 10 February 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied her petition for an upgrade of her discharge.

8.  She provided three character reference letters wherein the individual attested to her being an upstanding citizen who had a great love for Christ Jesus; she was currently building a ministry to serve people; and she was reliable, consistent, and a person of stellar moral character.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation stated in:

   a.  Chapter 10 - a Soldier whose conduct rendered him or her triable by 
court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could request a discharge for the good the service in lieu of a trial.  The regulation required that there have been no element of coercion involved in the submission of such a request and that the applicant was provided an opportunity to consult with counsel.  The Soldier was required to sign the request indicating he or she understood he or she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions, the adverse nature of such a discharge, and the possible consequences thereof.  The regulation required that the request be forwarded through channels to the general court-martial convening authority.  A UOTHC discharge would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.
   b.  Paragraph 3-7a - an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

   c.  Paragraph 3-7b - a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable condition.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was charged with the commission of several offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.  Discharge actions processed under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu by court-martial.  After consulting with counsel, she acknowledged the reasons for her discharge and that she could be furnished a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  She waived her rights and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

2.  She did not provide sufficient evidence or a convincing argument to show her discharge should be upgraded, and her military records contain no evidence which would entitle her to an upgrade of her discharge.  The evidence shows her misconduct diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.

3.  Without evidence to the contrary, her administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time and the current version, with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  She was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting her 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)                                         AR20140005361





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005361



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1