RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 February 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190013534 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a. Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge; and b. Correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 20 January 1989, to show she was separated due to medical disability instead of unsatisfactory performance. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * DD Form 214, for the period ending 20 January 1989 (Member Copy-1) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 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 the circumstances surrounding her discharge concerned an ongoing medical condition. She feels she should have been granted a medical discharge. [The applicant does not identify what medical condition she believes warranted separation through the disability evaluation system.] 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 1988. She entered active duty, successfully completed her initial entry training, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police). 4. The applicant was formally counseled on the following dates: 1 * on 18 August 1988, for failing to comply with the unit commander's sick call procedures policy, on or about 17 August 1988 * on 5 October 1988, for writing checks without sufficient funds, on or about 24 August 1988 * on 8 November 1988, for writing checks without sufficient funds, between October and November 1988 * on 12 January 1989, for suicide gestures on 19 December 1988 and 10 January 1989 5. A DA Form 3975 (Military Police Report), dated 19 December 1988, shows the applicant was investigated for an attempted suicide and possible illegal consumption of alcohol (underage drinking). The report indicates she and her boyfriend were involved in a verbal altercation and she inflicted a laceration for unknown reason to her left wrist. 6. An emergency care and treatment record, dated 19 December 1988, shows the applicant was treated for a suicidal gesture, slicing her left wrist, following a breakup with her boyfriend earlier that evening. The applicant stated she missed home and was not happy being stationed in Alaska. 7. A DA Form 3975, dated 10 January 1989, shows the applicant attempted suicide a second time by lacerating her right wrist. 8. The applicant was afforded a mental status evaluation on 17 January 1989. She was found to be cooperative and stated she felt very uncomfortable about her suicide gesture. The attending physician stated she appeared to be a very dependent type person who fears rejection. She was considered to be an immature person but not psychotic or having a personality disorder. She was cleared to participate in any administrative action deemed appropriate by her Command. 9. The applicant's unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate actions to separate her from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 13-2, due to unsuitability. 10. The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated discharge, the possible effects of an under honorable conditions discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to her. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, she acknowledged the proposed discharge. She further acknowledged that she understood that if she received a general discharge, she could be deprived of some or all Army benefits, she could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration/Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. 11. In an undated memorandum, the applicant's unit commander stated due to the seriousness of the applicant's actions, it was felt she would be of no value in a time of mobilization due to her mental state. 12. The applicant's unit commander formally recommended the applicant for separation from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2, due to unsuitability. The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed she receive a general discharge. 13. The applicant was discharged on 20 January 1989, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2. Her DD Form 214 confirms her service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). 14. The applicant's record contains no documentation that shows or confirms she was suffering from a medical condition (aside from mental health concerns detailed in her mental status evaluation) of such severity as to be considered unfitting, or that warranted her referral to the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). 15. The Board may consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination 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, her record of service, the frequency and nature of her misconduct, two Military Policy Reports regarding attempted suicide, the conclusions of a mental status examination and the reason for her separation. The Board found insufficient evidence of a medical condition that failed to meet medical retention standards or would warrant consideration for disability separation and the applicant provided no additional medical evidence. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct 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. 10/7/2020 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. 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 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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides medical fitness standards for retention and separation, including retirement. Chapter 3 provides the various medical conditions and physical defects that render individuals unfit for further service. An immature personality may render individuals administratively unfit rather than unfit due to physical disability. Interference with effective performance of duty in association with these conditions is to be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. c. Chapter 13 provides that commanders will separate a Soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that: * in the commander's judgment, 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 will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale * the Soldier will likely be a disruptive influence in duty assignments * the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separation proceedings will likely continue or recur * the Soldier's ability to perform duties effectively is unlikely * the Soldier's potential for advancement or leadership is unlikely 5. 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 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 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 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//