IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001875 


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 general discharge to a fully honorable discharge.  She also request a personal hearing.

2.  The applicant states she was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.  An honorable discharge appears to be better for her future.  

3.  The applicant does not provide any 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's records show she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 31 December 1986 and she held military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative Specialist). 

3.  She served in Korea from June 1987 to June 1988.  She also reenlisted in the RA on 31 May 1989.  She was awarded or authorized the:

* Army Service Ribbon
* Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award)
* Overseas Service Ribbon

4.  She was frequently counseled by members of her chain of command for various infractions including writing bad checks and not paying just debt, missing an alert, a lack of motivation, unsatisfactory performance, failing two skill qualification tests, and being late to formations and/or not showing up to formations. 

5.  On 21 July 1989, she accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty. 

6.  On 26 June 1990, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of her (the commander's) intent to initiate separation action against the applicant in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  The immediate commander cited the applicant's skill qualification test failures (twice), letter of indebtedness, dishonored checks, and abuse of sick call as the bases for the recommendation.  A general discharge was also recommended.

7.  On 26 June 1990, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate her and her right to consult with legal counsel.  She waived her right to consulting counsel and/or to submit matters in rebuttal.  Her commander advised her of the basis for the contemplated separation for unsatisfactory performance, the type of discharge she could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to her.  

8.  On 26 June 1990, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against her in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  Her immediate commander recommended approval.

9.  On 27 June 1990, following a legal review and consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance and directed that she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, she was discharged on 17 July 1990.

10.  Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms she was discharged in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general), and she completed 3 years, 6 months, and 17 days of active military service.

11.  There is no indication she petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of her separation processing within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when in the commander’s judgment the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.   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.

13.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice; direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing.  Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 






DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.  However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR.  Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR.  In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant are sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time.  

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant displayed a pattern of unsatisfactory performance as evidenced by her skill qualification test failures, history of writing bad checks, and not paying her debt.  It appears she could not conform to military standards or respond to counseling by her chain of command regarding her responsibility to meet Army standards. 

3.  It also appears she was given ample time to comply with the standards through counseling but she was unable or unwilling to conform.  Her continued unsatisfactory performance appears to have left no other option but to discharge her.  Accordingly, her immediate commander initiated discharge action against her.  

4.  Her administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant was fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service subsequent to her reenlistment.  

5.  Based on her failure to meet Army standards, her service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  

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)                                         AR20150001875



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001875



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1