RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            16 December 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003090797

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in a 61-page handwritten letter, in effect, that at the time of her discharge she was at fault and that the discharge was not an injustice on the part of the Army.  However, she has since embraced the Muslim religion and realizes the mistakes she made.  She is striving to be a better citizen and desires to have her discharge upgraded so that she may take advantage of any benefits that may be available to her.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on 14 August 1987.  The application submitted in this case is dated 1 May 2003.  

2.  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 allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in Detroit, Michigan, on 26 August 1985, for a period of 3 years, training as tactical satellite/microwave systems operator, and assignment to the Army Communications Command. 

4.  She completed her basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and her advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.   Upon completion of her AIT, she was transferred to a signal company in West Germany, on 15 March 1986.

5.  On 1 May 1987, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to her place of duty.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended for 60 days), extra duty and restriction.  However, on 18 June 1987, the commander vacated the suspended punishment.

6.  On 21 May 1987, the applicant's commander initiated a recommendation to bar her from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant's requiring constant supervision, her unreliability, her disciplinary record, frequently absenting herself from her place of duty, her unwillingness to accomplish the simplest of tasks, her lack of military bearing and her demonstrated unsuitability for military service.  The applicant acknowledged the notification and elected to submit a statement in her own behalf in which she asserted that she never refused to do her job and had tried to comply with Army standards.  The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 1 June 1987.

7.  On 3 August 1987, the applicant's commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He cited the applicant's failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions (nine sessions listed) and rehabilitative attempts by the chain of command, her bar to reenlistment and the same reasons used to justify her bar to reenlistment as the basis for his recommendation.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged that she understood that the lowest characterization of service she could receive was a discharge under honorable conditions.  She also submitted the same statement she submitted in rebuttal to her bar to reenlistment as her statement in her own behalf.

8.  She underwent a medical and physical examination which indicates that the applicant had made two or three suicide attempts and that information from the psychiatry department indicates that she had an adjustment disorder.  The examining physician recommended that she be kept under surveillance until her discharge.
	
9.  She also underwent a mental status evaluation and was deemed to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings.

10.  The appropriate authority approved her discharge and directed that she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  Accordingly, she was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 August 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  She had served 1 year, 11 month and 19 days of total active service.

12.  There is no indication in the available records to show that 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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  A discharge under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The Board notes the applicant's contentions and commends her for her post-service attempts to improve herself; however, that in itself is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant further upgrade of her discharge, when in fact, her service did not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 14 August 1987; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 14 August 1990.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_ _SAC___  __JS_  __SLP____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.  

		Samuel A. Crumpler
		   CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090797	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/12/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1987/08/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13 . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSAT PERF	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144.4900	572/A49.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.