ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190006747 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests an upgrade of her character of service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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, in effect, she never received an Article 15, or any other disciplinary action. She was told by a medic, if she did not sleep with him he would make sure she was discharged. She did not report this for fear of retaliation. She does not remember the date. 3. On 10 February 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. She completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 53B (Ammunition). The highest rank she attained while serving in the military was private/E-2. 4. The applicant’s records show upon completion of advanced individual training, she was assigned to the 545th Ordnance Company, Germany on 8 June 1981. 5. On 12 November 1981, the applicant was referred to the Babenhausen Community Counseling Center, Darmstadt Germany, from the chaplain’s office. After an initial interview, the psychologist recommended that the applicant be temporarily disqualified from the Personnel Reliability Program. Additionally, the following steps were taken: a. On 3 November 1981, she was administered a Clinical Analysis Questionnaire. The results of this test indicated she was moderately depressed with emotional immaturity. There were also indicators that she was withdrawn with limited social skills and she had limited motivation to change. b. In accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 50-5, Paragraph 3-12, b3 & b8, it was recommend that she be permanently disqualified from the Personnel Reliability Program. It was also highly recommended that she remain in counseling to prevent further problems. 6. The applicant’s record contains two proposed separation actions under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), signed by her operations/platoon sergeant and the first sergeant. a. The operations sergeant stated the applicant was continuously not available for duty in the storage section. If given a job to do, she would continually complain about the task by stating: It was too hot and she was about to pass out, or it was too cold and she thought that she was getting frost bite. Daily she would request inside work and when she was given work inside, it was normally completed below acceptable standards and would have to be done over. If she was instructed to do it over then this led to an onslaught of crying and complaining to everyone within ear shot. Additionally: (1) She also had a problem working with her peers. She didn't seem to be able to associate with anyone without either complaining or the helpers complaining about her not doing anything. Her complaints were usually that someone was harassing her or was picking on her. From his investigations of these incidents he was normally convinced that she always wanted someone else to do everything while she stood back and watched. As stated above she was hardly ever at her place of duty. He would have been pleased to see her 3 days a week. (2) She continuously went to sick call appointments or was given quarters. Her ailments included back ache, dizziness, kidney problems, female problems, and nausea. Notable occurrences of sickness normally took place when she was put on a detail or a job that required a bit of physical labor. For example-she was put on detail to rake leaves and suddenly she was nauseous and immediately went on sick call. (3) Further observation indicated that no matter how sick she claimed to be during duty hours as soon as the duty day had ended she was alright and was always one of the very first to be in civilian clothes and celebrating and at the club usually until it closed. (4) She was counseled on numerous occasions by him and by professionals in an attempt to assist her in becoming a good Soldier and understanding what was expected, and that she needed to put forth some effort. But every attempt that was made to help her seemed to be fruitless, normally because of her lack of desire to help herself. She was sent to see the chaplain because everything he had done had failed to help her. The chaplain voiced the same results. A last resort was a discharge. b. Her first sergeant stated he had known the applicant since July 1981. During this span of time she had failed to accomplish assigned tasks with or without direct supervision. She had a reputation of being incapable of professional and social interaction with either peers, superiors, or civilians. He had spoken with her on many occasions and found that she continually demonstrated unreasonable and illogical thought patterns. She had been the source of numerous complaints by personnel in the unit. She complained of nausea, and other conditions difficult to diagnose, when given a task that did not please her. She had not responded positively to efforts by members of the command, nor the medium of professional counsel, to motivate her attitude so that she could become a more productive person. Her continued service would be a liability to the US Army. 7. On 5 February 1982, the applicant’s immediate commander notified her that he was initiating action to discharge her under the provisions of chapter 5, AR 635-200 (EDP), for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. The immediate commander cited the applicant’s inability to adapt socially and emotionally, poor attitude, and lack of motivation. She was also advised of her rights. The immediate commander recommended an honorable. 8. The applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, AR 635-200, and voluntarily consented to discharge. She declined to submit a statement in her own behalf. 9. On 4 March 1982, her immediate commander recommended approval of the recommendation and the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 10, On 16 March 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms she completed 1 year, 1 month, and 7 days of creditable military service. 11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, then in effect, set forth the conditions under which enlisted personnel could be discharged, released from active duty or active duty for training, or released from military control, for the convenience of the Government. Paragraph 5-31 provided the policies and procedures for separating enlisted personnel under the Army's EDP. 12. The applicant contends that her discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable because she did not received an Article 15, or any other disciplinary action. Additionally, she contends a medic told her he would make sure that she would be discharged, if she did not sleep with him. She also contends she did not report it because she feared retaliation and that she does not remember the date on which this occurred. a. Based on the available evidence the applicant had problems adjusting to military life, she was evaluated by a psychologist and discharged. The applicant completed 1 year, 1 month, and 7 days of her 3 year enlistment obligation. b. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider her petition and her service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s statement regarding the medic’s comment, her record of service, the frequency and nature of her behaviors, the separation packet with medical evaluation and whether to apply clemency. The Board found no evidence of mitigation in-service and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. 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. X CH A IR PER SO N 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable 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 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, then in effect, set forth the conditions under which enlisted personnel could be discharged, released from active duty or active duty for training, or released from military control, for the convenience of the Government. Paragraph 5-31 provided the policies and procedures for separating enlisted personnel under the Army's EDP. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, also 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. 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 (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. 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 based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for 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 had the upgraded service characterization.