ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170017357 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of her discharge from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * self-authored statement * character statement from Mr. TRW, dated 18 July 2017 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states she would like her discharge to be upgraded to honorable to be able to receive benefits. She states she started as an Engineer in Germany and always did what was asked of her. When her company was deactivated, she was sent back to a unit stateside, again stating she still did what was asked of her. 3. The applicant provides: a. Self-authored statement where the applicant states after enlistment in the Regular Army, she was assigned overseas in Germany for her first assignment. She always performed very well, and did whatever was asked of her with no questions asked. She made promotions pretty fast and had her first child in Germany. Her unit deactivated and she was not able to find another Engineer Unit in Germany, so she was given orders back stateside to Fort Campbell, KY. Upon reporting to Fort Campbell, she learned she was pregnant with her second child. At first she worked with microfiche in her commander’s office, then later worked in the motor-pool until she started maternity leave. While on maternity leave, she made two requests to her unit first sergeant to extend of her leave for family reasons. Both requests were declined. It was after the second request that she was informed that she was being chaptered out. She inquired with her unit regarding the reason for her proposed separation. She was told they could not provide any further information. She requested to address the issue higher with her battalion commander, but her request was denied. She does not understand the reason she was separated. She references an Army Good Conduct Medal she was awarded on 29 July 1992, then received a Bar to Reenlistment from her commander on 6 August 1992. She reiterates she always did what was asked of her and never had a problem with anyone. b. Character statement from Mr. TRW provides, he has worked with the applicant for two years, during which time she exhibited consistent exemplary performance which is indicative of the type of person she is. TRW describes the applicant as hard working, energetic, dependable and a team player. TRW states he believes the applicant has a strong case, based on his thirty years of active duty commissioned service as a commander at various levels. He shares he was surprised by the lack of documentation in the applicant’s Military Personnel File to support the type of discharge she received. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 July 1989 and attained the rank of specialist four/E-4. b. On 6 August 1992, the applicant and her immediate commander signed a DA Form 4126 (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), notifying her that a recommendation for a bar to reenlistment had been initiated against her due to patterns of misconduct. She acknowledged she received a copy of this bar and that she had been counseled and advised on the basis for the action. She declined making a statement on her behalf. c. The Bar to Reenlistment recommendation was approved by the applicant’s battalion commander on 10 August 1992. d. The applicant’s record is void of the applicant’s appeal and all discharge documentation leading up to her release from active duty for the period of service listed on the DD Form 214 associated with this case. d. The applicant was released from active duty on 2 October 1992, under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance. Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 3 years, 2 months, and 27 days of active service, with no lost time, and was given a under honorable conditions (general) discharge. It also shows she was awarded or authorized: * Army Good Conduct Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar * Marksman Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar 4. By regulation (AR 635-200), in effect at the time, Soldiers are subject to separation under the provisions of chapter 13, when he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. An honorable or under honorable conditions (general) discharge was an appropriate and authorized characterization of service. 5. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition and her service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined relief is not warranted. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. The Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity. She did not provide character witness statements or evidence of post-service achievements for the Board to consider. Based upon the record of misconduct and the applicant already receiving a general discharge, the Board concluded there was no error or injustice which would warrant making a change to the applicant’s characterization of service. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier's service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. 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. c. Chapter 13, of the version in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory participation. Commanders will separate a Soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that: * In their judgement, the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier * The seriousness of the circumstances is such that the Soldier's retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale * It is likely that the Soldier will be a disruptive influence in present or future duty assignments * It is likely that the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separation proceedings will continue or recur * The ability of the Soldier to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely 3. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official government acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for the discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or has the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170017357 4 1