BOARD DATE: 19 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000947 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: 19 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000947 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: 19 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000947 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. She understood the standards of physical fitness that she was to maintain as a Soldier. b. She started having lots of problems with her right knee, which made her unable to maintain physical readiness. c. She was unable to pass her Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and she strongly believes it was due to the problems she was having with her right knee. She was not able to run in the allotted time and she has continued to have problems with her knee even after being discharged. d. Failure of the APFT was her only fault. In her opinion she was an outstanding Soldier who maintained a super appearance and her job performance was outstanding. She took great pride in her job performance as a food service specialist. Feeding the troops was a great responsibility that she did not take lightly. e. While serving in the military she had some great accomplishments and she received a plaque for outstanding performance of duty. She served as the dining facility manager and she maintained the account card well under the required limit. f. She trained the new dining facility manager when she arrived and she believes if it was not for the problems she was having with her knee, she would have passed the APFT and retired from the military, which was always her goal. g. She has experienced many health and medical issues in the last 3 1/2 years, which has taken an effect on her body and mind. She has been fighting depression every day to put her life back together. h. She has a service-connected disability rating for her right knee and she was recently approved for social security disability. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored statement * outstanding performance certificate, dated October 1987 through July 1990 * letter of congratulation, dated 8 January 1991 * letters written to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), dated 4 and 5 January 2016 * Bethel Outreach Ministries Letter, dated 28 December 2015 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 20 September 1984. She completed the training requirements and she was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (food service specialist). She remained on active duty through extensions and reenlistments. 3. A review of the applicant's official military record shows she was counseled on at least three separate occasions between 30 June and 26 August 1992 for failure to pass the APFT. During each counseling, she was told if she continued to fail the APFT she could be considered for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). She was told that she could receive a discharge under honorable conditions or a discharge under other than honorable conditions. After she failed the APFT a third time, she was afforded the opportunity to retake the APFT and she declined to do so. 4. On 17 September 1992, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for discharged under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance. Her commander cited failure to pass her APFT as the basis for the recommendation. On the same dated she acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, she acknowledged she had been advised of her rights, she waived her right to have her case considered by an administrative separation board, and her right to submit statements in her own behalf. 5. On 23 September 1992, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge under honorable conditions (general). On 13 October 1992, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance. She completed 8 years and 24 days of net active service this period. 6. A review of the applicant's official military records failed to reveal evidence that she was unable to pass her APFT because she had right knee problems that kept her from passing the APFT. The evidence shows she had not passed an APFT since December 1990. 7. The applicant provides a certificate for outstanding performance while serving as an administration noncommissioned officer in charge and a letter of congratulations from the Commanding General for a job well done by all of the dining facilities during the Christmas meal. Letters supporting the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge from two pastors attest to the applicant’s post-service conduct and a letter from a retired sergeant attests to her performance while on active duty. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 of this regulation 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's records show she was counseled on at least three separate occasions for failure to pass her APFT and each time she was informed of the type of discharge she could receive. 2. She was also provided an opportunity to retake her APFT on a fourth occasion and she declined to do so. She had not passed an APFT since 1990. 3. According to the applicable regulation, service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. It appears that based on her overall record of service, the discharge authority determined her service should be characterized as under honorable conditions. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000947 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000947 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2