IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 8 September 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002235
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 an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states:
a. It has been 26 years since her discharge and since that time she has grown up, owned a business, traveled, gone back to school, and had a beautiful child.
b. She has been asked to apply for the National Honor Society at her university and it requires an honorable discharge.
c. She wants to be a great example for her son and she believes it would/may be a black mark for him to see.
d. She deliberately sought to be out of the military so she took and signed a check that belonged to someone else.
e. She reported herself to her first sergeant and to the owner of the check knowing that she would be punished.
f. Her first sergeant, company commander, and battalion commander knew why she did what she did and processed her discharge.
g. When she was released, she was told she could apply for an honorable discharge after 6 months; however, she has not had a need to do so until now.
h. She has not sought any help, aid, or money from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and her only request is an upgrade of her discharge from general to honorable.
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 in June 1987. She completed training as a material storage and handling specialist.
3. The applicant was counseled on at least 11 separate occasions for the following acts of misconduct:
* unsatisfactory performance of duty
* negative attitude
* stealing and forgery
* unorganized room
* missing battle dress uniform
* failure to be at her appointed place of duty (three specifications)
* missing formation
* failure to be prepared for daily room inspection
* leaving the key to her wall locker where entry could be made
4. She accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three separate occasions for the following offenses:
* falsely making out a check in the amount of $50.00 in someone else's name
* failure to go to her appointed place of duty
* making a false statement
* being absent from work
* lying to her first sergeant
5. On 15 November 1988, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for discharge for unsatisfactory performance. The commander cited her records of counseling and her records of NJP as the basis for his recommendation. She acknowledged receipt of the notification and that she had consulted with counsel, and she waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf.
6. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
7. On 30 December 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly. She completed 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of net active service this period.
8. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 13 provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commanders judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.
b. Paragraph 3-7a states 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contentions have been noted.
2. Her record shows she accepted NJP on three separate occasions and she was counseled on at least 11 separate occasions as a result of her numerous acts of misconduct and indiscipline.
3. She was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. She provides no evidence to show this characterization of service is erroneous or unjust. The fact that she was told that she could apply for an upgrade of her discharge in no way implied that such a request would be granted.
4. The type of discharge the applicant received properly reflects her overall record of service.
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) AR20150002235
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002235
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018068
On 12 December 1988, her unit commander recommended that she be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. The evidence of record shows the applicant was recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2, for unsatisfactory performance with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. During her separation process, she acknowledged she could reenlist in the U.S. Army 2...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019525
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 13 October 1989, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, due to misconduct minor disciplinary infractions. The available records do not show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021591
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004915
c. His AIT and 5-week BSEP should be shown in item 14 of his DD Form 214. d. He was told his discharge would be upgraded to honorable after 2 years. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. Since his record of service included adverse counseling statements, a bar to reenlistment, and two NJP's, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015113
Her record contains a DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 18 October 1988, which shows she was counseled regarding payment of an outstanding debt in the amount of $420.00 and the fact that she would not be granted stateside leave until she paid the debt. On 18 September 1989, the applicant's unit commander notified her that he was initiating action which could result in separation from the Army with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003416C070208
On 25 August 1997, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. On 19 September 1997, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. There is evidence of record to show the applicant had back and knee problems and was a holdover at AIT because she could not pass the Army Physical Fitness Test.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014503C071113
John G. Heck | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 8 March 1990, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance and with a general discharge, under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004934C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. This man (her husband) made his way back into the country of Germany on just an ID Card.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017527
The applicant requests an upgrade of her general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 18 April 1988, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against her in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance (academic and Soldier deficiencies). Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 13 May 1988.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511651C070209
On 7 September 1994, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. On 4 October 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with...