IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  7 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014168 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions to honorable or general under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states:

* she was raised by her grandmother in a poverty-stricken part of eastern Kentucky
* her grandmother died when she was age 12 and she was forced to live with her mother in an unstable environment
* she was forced to care for her younger siblings because her mother was an alcoholic with many men in her life – different ones coming and going at all times
* she became pregnant at age 15 and her mother deserted her
* she had a son and they both struggled until she was forced to give him up for adoption which had a profound effect on her
* she was homeless and went from place to place, staying wherever she could
* she joined the Army out of desperation and found stability, but she still lacked the unconditional love of a man
* she was sent to Korea where she met a man whom she loved and who loved her
* she was then sent to Korea for a second tour and she was in fear of losing the man she loved
* she feels she was wrongly sent to Korea because it was her second hardship tour
* her marriage failed after leaving the Army and she received a lot of psychiatric treatment
* she begs to have her discharge overturned
* she regrets leaving the Army but she had no choice at the time

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 January 1980.

3.  Item 35 (Record of Assignment) of her DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record – Part II) shows she was assigned in Korea from on or about 28 September 1981 to on or about 3 November 1982.

4.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 4 January 1983, shows the applicant was married on 29 December 1982.

5.  Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division, Orders 142-73, dated 24 July 1984, show she was reassigned to Korea with an anticipated departure date from Fort Hood, TX, of 15 December 1984.  The orders also show travel of dependents to the overseas duty station was not authorized.  Item 35 of her DA Form 20 shows she was assigned to Korea from on or about 21 December 1984 to on or about 6 April 1985.

6.  Her records show her duty status changed from ordinary leave to absent without leave (AWOL) on 6 April 1985 and from AWOL to dropped from the unit rolls on 5 May 1985.

7.  A DA Form 4187, dated 20 August 1985, shows she was apprehended by civil authorities in Kendallville, IN, and her duty status changed from dropped from the unit rolls to attached/present for duty the same date.

8.  On 23 August 1985, charges were preferred against her for being AWOL on or about 6 April 1985 until on or about 20 August 1985.

9.  On 23 August 1985, she consulted with counsel who advised her of the basis for her contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; the effects of requesting discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10; and the rights available to her.

10.  After consulting with counsel, she voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  She acknowledged her guilt and that:

* she understood she could be discharged under other than honorable conditions 
* as a result of such a discharge, she would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and she would be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws
* she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge
* she did not elect to submit a statement in her own behalf

11.  On 28 August 1985, her commanding officer recommended approval of her request and stated she was on an unaccompanied tour in Korea and her husband threatened divorce if she remained in Korea.  She worked with her chain of command and chaplain, but could not get reassigned, so she chose to be AWOL.  He further stated that because of her poor attitude and lack of discipline, rehabilitative efforts would fail to make her a productive Soldier.

12.  On 10 September 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed the characterization of her service as under other than honorable conditions and reduction to private/E-1.

13.  On 30 September 1985, she was discharged accordingly.  Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 5 years, 4 months, and 9 days of active service and accrued 136 days of lost time.

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

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

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.

	b.  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.

	c.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge under other than honorable conditions was carefully considered.

2.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The record shows she was charged with being AWOL, an offense for which she could have been tried by court-martial and punished with a punitive discharge under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and her rights were fully protected throughout her discharge process.

3.  Based on her record of indiscipline, her service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.   Although the applicant sought assistance with her assignment, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to support an upgrade of her discharge.  Assignment of Soldiers is based on the needs of the Army.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting 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)                                         AR20140014168



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014168



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1