IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 December 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008632 


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 upgrade of her discharge.

2.  The applicant states she is an only child and her mother was deathly ill.  She had been denied leave and a hardship discharge and learned the chaplain couldn't help her.  She felt she couldn't wait for the normal process before she left.  She also states – 

* She was older than most when she joined the Army but she thought that it was her true God-given calling
* She has bi-polar disorder and, although it was only recently diagnosed, she attributes most of her life-long adjustment issues to this condition
* She thought her depression while in the Army was only due to separation from her family, especially her mother

3.  The applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and five 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 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.  On 6 February 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.

3.  She was counseled for being absent from her place of duty on 11 June and on 7, 12, 21, and 22 July 1997.  She was absent without leave (AWOL) from 
18 to 20 July 1997.  She was then counseled and recommended for disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for AWOL from 
7 through 13 August 1997.

4.   She was reported AWOL on 18 August and dropped from the rolls as a deserter.  The applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities in her home town on 16 March 1998.

5.  When charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  The applicant acknowledged that she had discussed with her counsel that the Army was currently lacking the necessary documentation to go to trial but she stated she wanted to persist in her request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

6.  She also offered a hand-printed statement to the effect that her mother suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and manic depression.  Her mother's condition had worsened since the applicant had been in the Army.  She, herself, had become depressed over her mother's situation.  She had been denied leave on several occasions but felt that she had no choice but to be with her mother.  She asked for a general discharge.

7.  She offered no evidence of her mother's illness and no evidence that she had requested and been denied leave.

8.  The chain of command recommended approval of her request and the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).  The separation authority approved the request and directed her discharge UOTHC.

9.  On 18 September 1998, the applicant was so discharged.  In approximately 19 months of affiliation she had served 1 year of creditable service and never completed training.
10.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge.

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

   a.  Chapter 10 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 Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An UOTHC discharge would normally be given to an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7 states 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.  

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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.

12.  In support of her request the applicant submitted reference letters as follows:

	a.  Sabrina H------- states that she is honored to have been asked to provide such a letter.  She reports the applicant possesses exceptional work morals and ethics, and an outstanding personality.  She is fortunate to have the applicant as a friend.  The applicant has overcome or still struggling with mental illness, a messy divorce, alcoholism (clean and sober for 18 years), unemployment, homelessness and disability.  She is most deserving of an upgrade.

	b.  Ariel B----- reports that she has known the applicant for 5 years.  The applicant is like a second mother for her.  The applicant has dealt with many burdens (single parenthood, homelessness, poverty, and many others).  The applicant has also had many accomplishments but she is most proud of being a mother.  

	c.  Gary S------ states he and the applicant grew up together.  They started dating in 1991 and later married.  They were married for 16 years.  The applicant enlisted shortly after they were married.  She is an honest, independent, responsible and caring individual.  She was a good wife and mother and still managed to obtain an associate's degree while working.  She hopes to obtain a bachelor's degree.  She worked at a local hospital for twelve and-a-half years and progressed from secretary to a salaried position.  Currently, she can't work due to her mental illness, but she is still the most responsible and loveable person he has encountered.

	d.  Brianna W------- has known the applicant for seven years.  The applicant has been a mother figure and a friend.  She has learned honesty, compassion, understanding and empathy from the applicant.

	e.  The applicant's mother feels responsible for the applicant's conduct leading to her discharge.  She has depended on the applicant for care and support for many years.  She does not know what she would have done without her daughter's help.  The applicant has been a responsible, wonderful mother to four children.  She is an usher in the church, has been clean and sober for 18 years and a productive member of society for 27 years, but her mental illness has kept her from working for the past 4 years.  She has endured homelessness due to her mental health.  The mother states she was ill, on her deathbed, and really needed the applicant with her when the applicant went AWOL.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The letters of support the applicant submitted are noted and impressive, but they do not demonstrate that the applicant's AWOL was the only available solution to her mother's health problem.  There is no available evidence that the applicant was denied leave or requested a hardship discharge.  

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  There is no documentation to support the applicant's contentions and no rationale to support the implied conclusion that those alleged circumstances warrant the requested relief.

4.  The applicant submitted neither probative evidence nor convincing argument in support of the request.  There is no basis for granting her request.

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)                                         AR20140008632





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008632



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1