ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180003681 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-Authored Statement 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 (ABCMR) 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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. She provides a self-authored statement detailing her reason for discontinuing service in the U.S. Army Reserve. She noted that she never received the four memoranda sent regarding the notification of promotion status. She also stated that she was caring for her ill father and has no regrets of discontinued service as a result. She has a desire to return to the reserves and humbly request the review board consider an upgrade to allow her to return to the Armed Forces. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 6 September 1989. b. Her application for appointment as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army Reserve included a DA Form 3575 (Certificate of Acknowledgement and Understanding of Service Requirements) submitted and signed on 25 October 2002. The certificate outlined training requirements and she agreed to comply with the service requirements. c. She was appointed as a Reserve commissioned office of the Army, in the grade of second lieutenant, and executed an oath of office on 3 December 2002. a. d. Four memoranda, dated 13 July 2004, 13 April 2005, 4 January 2006, and 23 March 2006 notified the applicant of her promotion status detailing she was not qualified for promotion to first lieutenant because there was no record she had completed the Basic Course, an education requirement outlined in Army Regulation (AR) 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers - Army National Guard and U. S. Army Reserve). e. The notification of promotion status included language stating officers in her grade who were not selected for promotion would be retained for a minimum of six months from the date they would have been promoted, if selected. Accordingly, if not discharged or promoted sooner, they would be discharged no later than 18 months from the date they were found not qualified for promotion. f. She was discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve on 26 May 2006 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 30 June 2017, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered her petition and determined she was properly discharged and the characterization of service was equitable. Her request was denied. 5. By regulation, a general discharge is a separation from the United States Army under honorable conditions of an officer whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 6. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicants petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge, the Board found insufficient evidence or justification which would warrant making a change to the 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. 5/16/2019 X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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 (AR) 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers - Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve), paragraph 2-8, states to qualify for selection, commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) must complete the military education requirements in table 2-2 not later than the day before the selection board convene date. Table 2-2 outlines the resident officer basic course as a requirement from second lieutenant (2LT) to first lieutenant (1LT). 3. AR 135-175 (Separation of Officers - Army National Guard and Army Reserve), in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of officers. a. Paragraph 1-6b(1) (Honorable Discharge Certificate) states an honorable discharge is a separation from the United States Army with honor. The issue of an honorable discharge is conditioned on proper military behavior and proficient and industrious performance of duty, giving due regard to the grade held and the capabilities of the officer concerned. b. Paragraph 1-6b(2) (General Discharge Certificate) states a general discharge is a separation from the United States Army under honorable conditions of an officer whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Paragraph 2-11 (Substandard Performance of Duty) states officers discharged for any of the following reasons will be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate: * downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable records of efficiency or a consistent records of mediocre service indicating the officer has reached the peak of his potential * failure to keep pace or to progress with contemporaries, such as successive promotion failure or a low record of efficiency when compared with other officers of the same grade, branch, and length or service * failure to exercise necessary leadership or command required of an officer of his grade * failure to perform with the technical proficiency required by the grade held * * failure to meet standards in a course of instruction at a service school due to academic or leadership deficiencies * failure to properly discharge assignments commensurate with his grade and experience * apathy, defective attitudes, or other character disorders, including inability or unwillingness to expand effort * failure of a dual component member to be recommended for promotion in enlisted status, or to be selected for retention under the Active component enlisted Qualitative Retention Program * failure to achieve satisfactory progress after participation in a medically established weight control program 4. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and BCMRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. The 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, an injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to an applicant. These factors include the severity of the misconduct and the length of time since the misconduct.