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 commander’s 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