BOARD DATE:	  20 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140009745 


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 that her discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge that will afford her benefits.

2.  The applicant states that at the time she enlisted she was naïve to the value and honor associated with and expected of her to represent the Armed Forces.  She made a mistake and prays to be pardoned from her mistake as she had learned 26 years to appreciate life and all it has to offer.  An upgrade of her discharge will open doors for affordable higher education, better employment opportunities, and the ability to be fully self-supportive. 

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with her application.

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 7 April 1988 for a period of       4 years, training as a light wheel vehicle mechanic, and assignment to Korea.  She was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey to undergo her one-station unit training.

3.  On 13 September 1988, while attending her advanced individual training, charges were preferred against the applicant for making a false official statement to a commissioned officer to the effect that she was having a relationship with a drill sergeant, a statement she knew to be false. 

4.  On 16 September 1988, after consulting with defense 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 that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She acknowledged she understood she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and she might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  She also elected not to submit a statement in his behalf.

5.  The applicant’s entire chain of command recommended approval of her request and recommended that she be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

6.  On 30 September 1988, the appropriate authority (a major general) approved her request and directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 

7.  On 6 October 1988, she was discharged accordingly.  She completed  6 months of total active service. 

8.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  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 Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be given an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides 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 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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert her innocence before a trial by court-martial, she voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on her record.  In doing so she admitted guilt to the charges against her.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances, especially given the serious nature of the charges against her and her otherwise undistinguished record of service.  His service simply did not rise to the level of under honorable 

conditions.  Additionally, the Board does not upgrade discharge simply for the purpose of qualifying individuals for benefits.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant an honorable or a general discharge.

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)                                         AR20140009745





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140009745



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1