RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011246 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. X 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 reconsideration of her previous request to upgrade her discharge. 2. The applicant states that she first served in the National Guard and then served her full enlistment in the Regular Army. She goes on to state that she received her college benefits and her unemployment benefits for that service and was prepared to reenlist at the time she was discharged. She continues by stating that she was planning on making the Army a career and wishes that she could turn back the hands of time and not make the stupid mistake she made. She further states that she was told at the time that her discharge would be upgraded after 2 years and she has lived with this mistake for 26 years and believes that she has suffered enough. 3. The applicant provides three character references with her application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050005633, on 1 November 2005. 2. The applicant enlisted in the New York Army National Guard on 25 April 1975 and served until she enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 November 1976 for a period of 4 years and training as a fabric repairman. 3. She successfully completed her training at Fort Lee, Virginia and remained assigned there as a physical activities specialist. She was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 March 1978. 4. On 12 August 1978, she was transferred to Germany for duty as a canvas repairman. On 21 September 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer, for behaving with disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer (her commander), and for two specifications of disobeying a lawful order from her commander. Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days), extra duty, and restriction. 5. The facts and circumstances surrounding her administrative discharge are not present in the available records because they were dispatched to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Indianapolis, Indiana on 30 April 1981. However, the available records show that on 19 June 1980, the commander denied her award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and action was initiated on 31 July 1980 to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – homosexual acts moral or professional dereliction. 6. On 7 November 1980, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions at Fort Dix, New Jersey, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33A(3), for misconduct – Homosexual Acts Moral or Professional Dereliction. She had served 3 years, 11 months and 15 days of active service during her current enlistment. 7. The three character references submitted by the applicant with her application are from a physician, an attorney, and an office business manager who all indicate that the applicant is a responsible citizen. 8. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, paragraph 14-33a(3), provides for discharge due to other acts of misconduct because of homosexual acts. While an honorable or general discharge may be issued, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. There are not now, nor have there ever been any automatic provisions for the upgrade of such discharges. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed her characterization of service was commensurate with her overall record of service. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 2. The Board has considered the new evidence submitted by the applicant and commends the applicant for her post-service conduct. However, when compared to her record of undistinguished service, that in itself is not sufficient to warrant an upgrade of her discharge for misconduct. 3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show 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. 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050005633, dated 1 November 2005. ______X________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060011246 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20070301 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (UOTHC) DATE OF DISCHARGE 1980/11/07 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR635-200/CH14 . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON MISCONDUCT BOARD DECISION (DENY) REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1.144.6000 626/A60.00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.