BOARD DATE: 25 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000608 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 BOARD DATE: 25 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000608 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. BOARD DATE: 25 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000608 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 reconsideration of her earlier request for an upgrade of her general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). 2. The applicant states, in effect, she wanted to stay in the Army, but she was pushed out without any counseling or guidance for improvement. She was young and scared and she accepted the actions taken against her because she did not know what else to do. Although she is a veteran, she does not feel that recognition because of the treatment she received. She asks why she is unable to use the Montgomery GI Bill benefit that she paid into. She has obtained her bachelor’s degree and is working on her master’s degree. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents. 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 AC95-11935, on 24 July 1996. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 November 1990. She completed initial entry training as a cargo specialist. 3. She accepted non-judicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for departing her unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from on or about 9 – 12 July 1991. 4. The applicant’s official military personnel file includes twelve DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated between 19 October 1991 and 24 February 1992 that show she was counseled for the following infractions: * missing formation * repeatedly failing to repair * repeatedly writing dishonored checks as a result of having insufficient funds (suspension of check cashing privileges) * driving without a license * lost or stolen military equipment from her privately owned vehicle * being disrespectful and insubordination towards a noncommissioned officer 5. On 2 March 1996, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and the results showed: * normal behavior * she was fully alert and oriented * an unremarkable mood or affect * a clear thinking process * normal thought content * good memory * she was mentally responsible * she had the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation processing * she was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command 6. On 31 March 1992, the applicant’s commander informed her of his intent to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for pattern of misconduct. The commander recommended she receive a GD and cited the following reasons as the basis for his recommendation: * receipt of NJP * numerous failures to be at her appointed place of duty * many notices from civilian agencies of checks written with insufficient funds * inability to perform at the lowest military standards 7. The commander also informed the applicant of her right to: * consult with legal counsel * obtain copies of documents pertaining to the separation action * request a hearing before an administrative board (if accrued 6 or more years of active or Reserve service) * be represented by either or both military and civilian counsel * waive her rights * submit a request for a conditional waiver of her rights 8. On 4 April 1992, the applicant completed her election of rights by requesting representation by counsel. She elected to submit a statement on her own behalf. 9. On 5 May 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, with the issuance of a GD. On 12 May 1992, she was discharged accordingly. 10. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct. It also shows she completed 1 year, 6 months, and 14 days of creditable active service and she held the rank/grade of private /E-2 at the time of discharge. 11. On 22 March 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant's discharge was both proper and equitable and denied relief for an upgrade of her characterization of service. However, the ADRB voted unanimously to change the narrative reason for discharge from “patterns of misconduct” to “misconduct” and a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) was subsequently issued. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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 that could result in a punitive discharge, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) is normally appropriate. 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. 2. The MGIB, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 1411(b) (change to section 3011), provides for Soldiers who first entered the service after 30 June 1985, to be automatically enrolled into the MGIB and to contribute $1,200 during their first 12 months of service, which is nonrefundable. The program is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). DVA regulations specify that if a Soldier is separated prior to the Soldier’s normal expiration term of service, the separation must be for hardship, medical disability or for the convenience of the government. The Soldier must have served at least 20 months for a 2-year enlistment, and at least 30 months for an enlistment of 3 years or more. In all cases, the Soldier’s service must be considered fully honorable. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends her GD should be upgraded to an HD because she was pushed out of the Army without counseling or guidance to allow her an opportunity to show improvement. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was provided opportunities for rehabilitation through formal counseling on at least 12 separate occasions for a myriad of disciplinary infractions. 2. The evidence of record also confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. Although a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for the applicant’s reason and misconduct, it appears the separation authority considered her overall record of service and determined her separation warranted a GD. 4. Finally, the applicant contends that although she paid into the MGIB, she is unable to use this educational benefit. The MGIB is a DVA administered program and their regulation limits its use to Soldiers who completed a minimum of 30 months of service on a 3 year enlistment with a fully honorable discharge. The applicant received a GD and she completed just over 18 months of service on her 4-year enlistment. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000608 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000608 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2