IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 August 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080008236 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 that her general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states that “since leaving the service she has attained her degree in criminal justice and began the masters program in the same field.” She also states that she has been working for New York City Department of Children’s Services for 18 years. She states that she is starting over after having worked in one field for 18 years and she wants a clean record. 3. The applicant does not provide any additional documentation in support of her request. 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's military records show that she entered active duty on 19 July 1983 and trained in Military Occupational Specialty 98G00, Electronic Warfare/Signal Intelligence Voice Interceptor. She was discharged from the Army by reason of misconduct-drug abuse on 4 January 1985 in pay grade E-3. The applicant received a general discharge, under honorable conditions. 3. The applicant was given a Letter of Reprimand on 17 October 1984 for use of controlled substances which resulted in a positive urinalysis. 4. On 3 December 1984, the applicant’s commander notified her that he intended to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), by reason of misconduct-drug abuse. The applicant was advised of her rights and requested a personal appearance before a board of officers. She elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf. 5. On 19 December 1984, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged and issued a General Discharge Certificate. On 11 December 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go at the prescribed time to her appointed place of duty. 6. The applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant be eliminated before the expiration of her term of service under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200 for misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs. 7. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. 9. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that her general discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant was advised of the effects of a general discharge. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and declined to make a statement in her own behalf. 3. The applicant requested a personal appearance before an administrative separation board of officers but was ineligible. Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 states that an individual is not entitled to have a case heard by an administrative separation board unless they are being considered for a discharge under other than honorable conditions or have at least 6 years of total active and Reserve military service at the time of separation. At the time of separation, the applicant only had 1 year, 5 months, and 16 days of total active military service and was issued a general under honorable conditions discharge. 4. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights. 5. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant’s post service accomplishments are commendable. However, those accomplishments are insufficient in and of themselves to warrant upgrading a properly issued discharge. 6. A review of the applicant's record shows she did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. The applicant's entire record of service was considered. There is no record or documentary evidence of acts of valor, achievement, or service that would warrant special recognition. 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) AR20080008236 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1