IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  3 March 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012880 


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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  Her discharge was forced and unfair.   She was not treated fairly and she was not informed of her rights.

	b.  She was young and she lacked the proper support as a Soldier of the United States Army.  She was also overwhelmed by the discrimination from her peers and commanders in her unit.  

	c.  Her peers took advantage of her youth and ignorance and she was placed in a hostile environment.  One day she found racist propaganda on her barracks room door.  

	d.  She was teased because she is African American and she had never seen crack cocaine.  Not one person in her company advocated for her and she suffered emotional distress at the hands of her peers and commanders.  

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 21 July 1969.  She enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 17 October 1988 and she attended initial active duty for training (IADT) from 30 November 1988 to 28 April 1989.  

3.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 July 1989.

4.  On 8 February 1990, she was counseled for rendering four dishonored checks in a 90-day period.  

5.  On 13 February 1990, she accepted nonjudicial punishment for stealing a calling card, the property of another Soldier, and for pretending (to the calling card company) to be the rightful owner of the card and wrongfully receiving services of a total value of over $100.  

6.  On 13 March 1990, the applicant's immediate commander informed her of his intent to separate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense, with a general discharge.  The commander cited as the reasons for the proposed separation action the fact that she stole a calling card, the property of another Soldier, she pretended (to the calling card company) to be the rightful owner of the card, and she wrongfully received services of a total value of over $100.  She was also advised of her right to consult with legal counsel, submit statements in her own behalf, and/or waive her rights in writing.

7.  On 13 March 1990, she consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for commission of a serious offense, its effects, the rights available to her, and the effect of any action taken by her in waving her rights.  She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  She acknowledged she understood she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general, under honorable conditions discharge was issued to her.  She also acknowledged she understood that if she received a character of service of less than honorable, she may apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board for an upgrade of her discharge; however, she realized that an act of consideration by either board did not imply her discharge would be upgraded.

8.  On 19 March 1990, the appropriate separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 14, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 27 March 1990, she was discharged accordingly.

9.  There is no evidence in her available records that indicates she suffered from racial harassment and/or discrimination.  

10.  There is no evidence indicating she applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of her discharge.

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

   a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.

   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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered.  
2.  Her record shows she was counseled for rendering four dishonored checks in a 90-day period and she accepted nonjudicial punishment for stealing a calling card from another Soldier and for obtaining services in excess of $100 with the stolen calling card.  These were clearly serious offenses.  

3.  By stealing from another Soldier, she compromised the special trust and confidence placed in her as a Soldier and she knowingly risked her military career.  This misconduct clearly diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

4.  She contends she suffered racial harassment and/or discrimination; however, she provided no evidence that substantiates her claim that racial discrimination and/or harassment were the proximate cause of her acts of misconduct.

5.  She also contends that she was not informed of her rights; however, the evidence of record confirms she was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and that she was advised of the rights available to her.  Therefore, her contention is without merit.  

6.  She further contends that she was young; however, age is not a mitigating factor for her misconduct.  She completed IADT, which shows she was mature enough to serve.  Additionally, there is no evidence that indicates she was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their terms of military service.

7.  The available evidence confirms her separation processing for misconduct was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

8.  The applicant has failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the command's actions and/or the characterization of her service were in error or unjust.

9.  In view of the foregoing, there is no 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 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)                                         AR20140012880



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012880



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1