IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  16 June 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018907 


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, in effect, an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge.   

2.  The applicant states she was rushing around at closing time and put bulk mail in a storage room instead of sending it back to the postal office.  She was given the option of receiving a court-martial or getting discharged.  This resulted in her receiving an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She made a mistake; however, prior to the incident she was a good Soldier.  She feels she has paid the price for her mistake 22 years ago and requests favorable consideration of her application so she may obtain much needed health care services. 

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 on 3 November 1987, in the rank/grade of private/E-2.  She successfully completed training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative Specialist).  She subsequently completed training in postal operations and was awarded additional skill identifier "F5."

3.  Upon completion of training she performed duties as an administration specialist at Headquarters, United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC), Fort Sheridan, IL from April 1988 to August 1991.  She received award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award), the Army Achievement Medal, and on      1 June 1991, she received a lateral appointment to the rank of corporal.

4.  On 10 September 1991, she was assigned to the 19th Adjutant General Company (Postal), Eighth U.S. Army, Korea.  Her available records are void of any evidence of performance counseling or additional training associated with postal operations during her assignment to the 19th Adjutant General Company (Postal).

5.  On 27 March 1992, a Criminal Investigation Division investigation was initiated based on possible mail theft during which the applicant admitted that she had removed mail from the Army Post Office (APO) and secured it in a container express (CONEX).

6.  On 27 April 1992, a charge was preferred against her for one specification of wrongfully secreting approximately 1,400 separate pieces of U.S. mail which had been deposited with the U.S. Army Post Office at Camp Long and was then in a storage container before said mail was delivered to the addressees.

7.  On 1 May 1992, the applicant consulted with legal counsel who advised her of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a request for discharge, and the procedures and rights available to her.  Following consultation with legal counsel, she requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.

8.  In her request for discharge, she acknowledged she was submitting the request of her own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion, that she was guilty of the charges against her, and that under no circumstances did she desire further rehabilitation or to perform further military service.  She further acknowledged she understood that if the request were approved she might be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  She also acknowledged she understood she might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, she might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, she might be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  She submitted a statement on her own behalf in which she claimed:

   a.  She was very sorry for what had happened and the trouble it caused for her chain of command and those individuals involved.  Especially those people whose mail was delayed by her inexcusable action.

   b.  She had served for almost five years and had not been involved in any misconduct.  She improperly moved the mail due to a back log and then added to her mistake by forgetting about it.  She acknowledged she was totally wrong.

   c.  She acknowledged that leaving the military in this manner would have a large negative impact on her life; however, she restated how sorry she was to all those involved.

9.  Her immediate commander recommended approval of her request with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He further stated that the applicant had committed a serious crime and violated the special trust given to her as a postal clerk but criminal intent was not evident to him.  The applicant was derelict in her duties by secreting mail but she did not tamper or use any mail for personal gain.

10.  The acting brigade commander recommended approval of her request with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He further stated that mail fraud or loss of mail is very serious and a discharge under other than honorable conditions should be issued to serve as deterrence to others who might take mail responsibilities lightly.

11.  On 7 May 1992, the Command Judge Advocate opined:

   a.  The evidence indicated the applicant was derelict in the performance of her duties as opposed to wanting to steal the mail.

   b.  The commander of the applicant made note of the fact that she did not do the crime of secreting mail with any motive of profit or self gain.  He also distinguished this case from another case where the gain was obviously monetary.  

   c.  The commander further indicated that much of the mail that had been placed in the CONEX was bulk mail which would have been destroyed anyway.  The commander further indicated that the applicant had performed extremely well within the unit and may have merely required closer supervision.

12.  On 8 May 1992, the separation authority approved her request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with her service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  On 20 May 1992, she was discharged accordingly.

13.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with her service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  She completed 4 years, 6 months, and 18 days of net active service with no lost time.  

14.  On 21 August 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board denied her petition for an upgrade of her discharge.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 request for upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered.  The evidence available to the Board shows she had an unblemished service record prior to being charged with an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  In her four years of service prior to being charged she was promoted two grades, appointed to the rank of corporal, and received an Army Achievement Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award).

2.  The applicant readily admits to improperly moving a back log of mail to the CONEX and forgetting about it.  After a 3-year stateside assignment at USAREC, the applicant was assigned to Korea in September 1991.  It is reasonable to presume she needed time to acclimate herself to her new country, unit, and her responsibilities within the APO.  It is just as likely a desire to remain in good standing combined with a lack of experience and insufficient oversight may have led an otherwise solid Soldier to take a shortcut.  In addition, her record was void of any evidence of performance counseling associated with postal operations during her assignment with the 19th Adjutant General Company (Postal).

3.  In retrospect, the undesirable discharge that she received appears too harsh.  While the severity of the charge preferred against the applicant cannot be ignored, the evidence indicates the applicant was derelict in the performance of her duties as opposed to any premeditated scheme to profit from stealing mail.  There was no indication of malice on the part of the applicant.  In fact, her immediate commander indicated that she had performed extremely well within the unit and may have merely required closer supervision.  

4.  However, her overall quality of service does not warrant an honorable discharge.  Therefore, as a matter of equity and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to show the applicant received a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions on 20 May 1992.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X___  ____X___  ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that:

	a.  all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing she was separated from the service with a general discharge under honorable conditions on 20 May 1992; and

	b.  the Department of the Army issue her a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 20 May 1992, in lieu of the Undesirable Discharge Certificate of the same date now held by her.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains upgrading the applicant's discharge to an honorable discharge.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20140018907





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018907



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1