IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009237 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009237 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009237 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, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states: a. The drill instructors listed her height as 5 feet 3 inches (63 inches) on her last [Army] Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and she went in the Army as 66 inches. She had been having chest/lung issues since basic training (BT), was going to doctor appointments, and was even put in the hospital. However, her senior drill instructor harassed her during this time because of her health issues. b. When she was getting out, she was told that if she fought the general discharge within 3 years the Army would change her discharge to a dishonorable discharge. She was scared so bad; she has had mental and physical issues all these years. c. She tried to get her records to show the evidence but she was not sent the papers showing her height from the time she went in the Army and all the times they documented her height before an APFT. She weighed 150 pounds and was 66 inches on all the tests. They taped her every time and she passed, except for the last time when they listed her height as 63 inches. She is not sure if she shrunk but if her height was 66 inches when she enlisted and 63 inches when she was discharged, then she did have health issues that should have been noted. That could have explained her struggle on her last APFT. d. She should not have been harassed, bullied, and discharged for unsatisfactory performance. She wanted to stay in and do her [military occupational specialty (MOS)] 05H (Morse Code Interceptor) job but her health was an issue and her company was not helping her. She did have one drill instructor that went to a doctor's appointment (with her) because she believed in her and she was too sick to drive herself. She actually told her there was a big push to get a lot of personnel out of the military but she has no proof that she was told this. The next thing she knew was her senior drill instructor was harassing her and she failed the tape test. No one would listen to her when she said she must have shrunk. The last time she tried to tell someone was at her exit interview and that is when they said if she fought her general discharge within 3 years they would change it to dishonorable. e. The only records she has are her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and the military identification (ID) card she was given when she was transitioning out of the Army. The ID card shows her company put her as 64 inches and 143 pounds. Since her superiors had her height wrong, they harassed her and said she had to go to "fat boy" camp. She was even dumped out of her top bunk by the senior drill instructor. 3. The applicant provides her DD Form 214, military ID card, orders, discharge certificate, marriage certificate, and a divorce decree. 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 are not available for review with this case. It is not known if her records were lost or destroyed; however, the applicant provided her DD Form 214 which is sufficient for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 3. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 14 October 1988. She was discharged from the DEP on 30 November 1988. 4. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 December 1988. It appears she completed BT and was assigned for advanced individual training (AIT) to Company C, 1st Battalion, 112th Military Intelligence Brigade, Fort Devens, MA. 5. She provides her military ID card, issued on 7 November 1989, wherein it lists her height as 64 inches and weight as 143 pounds. 6. Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge processing are not known, she provided her DD Form 214 that shows she was released from active duty on 22 November 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. She completed 11 months and 22 days of net active service and was transferred to the USAR. 7. She provides orders that show she was honorably discharged from the USAR on 11 December 1992. 8. The applicant has not provided any evidence that shows while serving on active duty she was treated for or diagnosed with any medical condition that was determined to cause her not to be able to permanently perform the duties of her grade or MOS or was found unfitting. 9. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. b. Chapter 3 provides that a Soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial. c. 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. d. 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: 1. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's separation processing are not known. However, the DD Form 214 she was issued shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. 2. Notwithstanding her contention that her height was listed incorrectly and she had medical issues that resulted in her being harassed by her drill sergeant, she only provided a military ID card that showed her height as 64 inches. She did not provide any evidence that shows this was not accurate, that her height was listed as 66 inches when she entered active duty, that a height difference caused her to have medical issues that resulted in her not being able to perform her military duties, or that she was unduly harassed by her drill sergeants. 3. Notwithstanding her contention that she was told her discharge would be changed to a dishonorable discharge if she requested an upgrade, a dishonorable discharge is only issued pursuant to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. 4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed what the Army did in her case was proper and that her separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights and that her discharge properly reflects her record of service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009237 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009237 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2