IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  19 March 2015  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140013692 


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 discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states she was under the impression at the time that after she was released from service her discharge would be automatically upgraded after 6 months.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of 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.  On 13 July 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed initial entry training, and she was awarded military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistics Specialist).  She was assigned to the 159th Air Ambulance Medical Company, in Wiesbaden, Germany from 11 December 1995 to 8 January 1998.

3.  On 5 June 1998, the applicant was formally counseled for failure to obey a direct order to pay a just debt.  On 11 June 1998, she received another formal counseling for failure to go to her appointed place of duty on several occasions.

4.  On 16 June 1998, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation and was found fit for any action deemed appropriate by her command.

5.  On 19 June 1998, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 10 specifications of failing to go to her appointed place of duty and for two specifications of making, drawing or uttering checks without sufficient funds. 

6.  On 30 June 1998, the applicant accepted another NJP for assault, failure to report for duty, dereliction in the performance of duties, and for failure to obey a lawful general order.

7.  The applicant's commander recommended her separation from the Army prior to the expiration of her term of service by reason of a pattern of misconduct.  He recommended that she be discharged with service characterized as general, under honorable conditions, and that she not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

8.  The applicant's command advised her of her right to:

* be represented by counsel
* submit statements in her own behalf
* review documents to be presented to the separation authority
* waive any of these rights
* withdraw any waiver of rights at any time prior to the date the discharge authority directs or approves her discharge

9.  On 24 September 1998, she acknowledged receipt of notification that her command was initiating action to discharge her under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) for a pattern of misconduct.

10.  On 5 October 1998, she acknowledged she had been advised by consulting counsel of:

* the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish her separation for a pattern of misconduct and its effects
* the rights available to her
* the effect of any action taken by her in waiving her rights

11.  She further acknowledged:

* she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a GD were issued to her
* she was ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for 2 years after discharge
* she could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for a discharge upgrade, but there was no implication her discharge would be upgraded

12.  The applicant elected to submit a statement in her own behalf prior to her separation.  She also elected to be considered by an administrative separation board, if her discharge was approved for an other than honorable discharge.  In her personal statement she stated that although she did not take issue with being separated, there were extenuating circumstances which consisted of many personal problems that made it hard for her to continue performing to the best of her ability.   These problems consisted of a long-term knee injury and financial difficulties.  Therefore, she stated that she felt she was entitled to an HD since she had always performed her duties to a high standard, and that her misconduct was a result of simple misunderstandings or was blown out of proportion by the command.

13.  On 28 October 1998, the applicant's recommendation for separation was approved, and on 10 November 1998, she was discharged.  She completed 3 years, 3 months, and 28 days of active service that was characterized as general, under honorable conditions. 

14.  There is no indication she applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of her discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.  Chapter 14 dealt with separation for various types of misconduct.  Paragraph 14-12b provided for the separation of a Soldier due to a pattern of misconduct.  This included discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct in violation of the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army regulations, civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate for separations under the provisions of chapter 14.

	b.  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 U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application to either the ADRB or the ABCMR requesting a change in a discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the ABCMR determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

2.  The evidence shows she was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized her rights.

3.  Due to her misconduct, her service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading her 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)                                         AR20120010087



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140013692



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1