IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE:  25 June 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019532 


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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states she has not received an update on her discharge.  Her discharge was supposed to be updated to an honorable discharge after 6 months.

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 31 July 1980.

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 November 1979, she enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed basic combat training but she did not complete advanced individual training.  

3.  She accepted nonjudicial punishment:

* in March 1980 for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 1 day
* on 22 May 1980 for two specifications of being absent from her appointed place of duty and one specification of failing to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer
* on 17 June 1980 for being AWOL 2 - 7 June 1980

4.  Her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows she had a period of AWOL from 10 - 16 June 1980.  However, there is no record of the disposition of this offense in her Military Personnel Records Jacket.

5.  On 24 June 1980, the applicant's commander notified her that he was initiating action to discharge her under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) for unsuitability.

6.  The commander advised the applicant of her right to:

* consult with consulting counsel
* have her case considered by a board of officers
* appear in person before a board of officers
* submit statements in her own behalf
* be represented by counsel
* 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

7.  On 24 June 1980, the applicant acknowledged that she had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against her under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsuitability.  She did not submit any statements in her own behalf and she waived:

* consideration by a board of officers
* a personal appearance
* representation by counsel 

8.  The applicant further acknowledged that she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to her.

9.  On 10 July 1980, her commander recommended her for discharge under the provisions of paragraph 13-4c, Army Regulation 635-200.  The commander's reason for the recommendation was her apathetic attitude and inability to expend effort constructively.  She demonstrated this by repeated AWOLs, failures to repair, and failure to obey lawful orders as a result of her lack of self-discipline.  He indicated she was counseled on numerous occasions by her staff sergeant, sergeant first class, first sergeant, first lieutenant, and lieutenant colonel.

10.  On 11 July 1980, her battalion commander recommended approval of her discharge.  He stated she had repeatedly demonstrated her inability to function as a Soldier through numerous acts of misconduct.  She was extremely hostile toward the rules and regulations imposed on her by the military.  The act of getting up at 0500 hours causes her problems.  Her lack of self-discipline and inability to respond to efforts toward motivation indicated she should not be retained in the Army.

11.  On 24 July 1980, the appropriate authority waived further rehabilitative requirements; approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of paragraph 13-4c, Army Regulation 635-200; and directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  On 31 July 1980, she was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsuitability for apathy, defective attitude, or inability to expend effort constructively.  She had completed 8 months and 
6 days of net active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions.  She had 12 days of time lost.

13.  There is no indication she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 13-4c provided for the separation of individuals for unsuitability whose record evidenced apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and an inability to expend effort constructively.  The regulation required that separation action was to be taken when in the commander's judgment the individual would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.
	b.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends her general discharge was supposed to be updated 
6 months after the date of her discharge.

2.  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 Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR requesting change in 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.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

3.  The applicant 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 tend to jeopardize her rights.

4.  She had three periods of AWOL and had been counseled numerous times about her performance.  

5.  The quality of her service did not generally meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Her record is not otherwise so meritorious as to make a general discharge inappropriate. 

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)                                         AR20140019532



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019532



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1