IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002733 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge. 2. The applicant states that time has brought about change and she shares these changes with her groups. She states she would like to add "this change" to her discharge to be upgraded to general under honorable conditions. 3. The applicant provides: * Army Review Boards Agency letter, dated 30 December 2014 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 26 April 1993 * Self-Authored letter (Undated) * Letters of Reference (Four) * Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities letter, dated 9 October 2009 * Ministry of the Living God letter, dated 24 September 2008 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 on 10 October 1979. She completed training as a traffic management coordinator. 3. The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available for review. A Report of Return of Absentee dated 3 February 1993 shows that the applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 29 May 1984 and she remained absent in desertion until she returned to military control on 3 February 1993. 4. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows she was discharged on 26 April 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged under other than honorable conditions. 5. The applicant provides a self-authored letter requesting an upgrade of her discharge based on the dramatic changes she has made in her life. She states: a. She has given her live to working with individuals in need of direction who have traveled down the wrong road that has led to destruction in an unforgiving society. b. She volunteers assisting abused women and young adolescences who have had trouble with the law. c. We all make mistakes in our lives, some more easily to overcome than others, and she speaks about her path to groups of individuals to show them that, with the grace of God, changes can be made. d. In her heart she loves her country, she has pride for her country, and she wants to speak to others and show them that she has been given mercy due to the changes in her heart. 6. The applicant also provides four letters of reference attesting to her good character and post-service conduct. She provides a letter from the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Disabilities describing her condition and treatment and she provides a letter from the Ministry of the Living God pertaining to her seeking "spirit counsel." 7. Review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of her discharge. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of veterans' benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. 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. c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contentions have been noted. Her supporting evidence has been considered. 2. The available evidence shows she was AWOL from 29 May 1984 until 3 February 1993. She voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. She was discharged in accordance with the applicable regulation and the type of discharge she received appears to appropriately characterize her overall record of service. 3. The applicant is commended for her post-service conduct. However, it is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. She was AWOL for almost 9 years. Her service simply did not rise to the level of a general or an honorable discharge. 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) AR20150002733 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002733 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1