IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015051 


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 general under honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states she would like to get her discharge changed to honorable to possibly get her “I.D.” back and some of her benefits.  She only recently learned that it didn't automatically get changed.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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 and on 16 October 1991.  She completed training in military occupational specialty 95B (military police) and was stationed at Sierra Army Depot, Herlong, California on 9 October 1992.

3.  On 25 January 1993, she was dropped from the Personnel Reliability Program because she denied under oath behavior that she had admitted before the commanding officer (CO).

4.  She received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for willful disobedience of an order from a commissioned officer.  The punishment included extra duty and a suspended reduction to pay grade E-2.  On 1 March 1993, the suspended reduction in pay grade was vacated because the applicant was late for extra duty.

5.  A Memorandum for Record, dated 17 March 1993, indicates that a medical doctor, Captain S____, reported to the CO that he believed the applicant was malingering because she had been to sick call 27 times since November 1992.

6.  On 26 March 1993, the applicant was informed of initiated separation action with a general discharge for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12.  She was informed of her rights to consult with counsel, to submit written statements in her own behalf, and to obtain copies of any documents that would be sent to the separation authority.

7.  The applicant indicated that she would submit statements in her own behalf and that she desired consultation with and representation by counsel.  She consulted with counsel and acknowledged that she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if she received a general discharge.  She also acknowledged that she could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board and the ABCMR and that she was ineligible to apply for reenlistment for 2 years.

8.  The CO recommended separation with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  In a memorandum for the base commander the CO noted that as of 6 May 1993 the applicant had submitted nothing in her own behalf.

9.  The separation authority waived rehabilitation requirements because they seemed unlikely to be successful and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.

10.  On 21 May 1993, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct.  She had completed 1 year, 7 months, and 6 days of creditable service.

11.  There is no indication she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  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 consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions) and a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline).  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.  

	b.  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. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a general discharge under honorable conditions.  She was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in her own behalf, but she declined to do so.

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

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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)                                         AR20140015051





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015051



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1