PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           18 February 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12698
				   AR1998013573

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that her records be corrected to show that she was continued on active duty in the grade of E6 from 26 June to 30 October 1992 and that she be entitled to full pay and allowances for that period.

3.  The applicant states that she was never informed that she had been reduced to E1 and discharged on 26 June 1992.  She continued to perform duties with her organization until 30 October 1992 when her supervisor informed her that she had been discharged and told to go home.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she was serving on active duty in an Army/Guard Reserve (AGR) status in the pay grade of E6.  She was assigned recruiting duties in Boston when she was informed that she had tested positive for marijuana.  She requested and received a hearing before a board of officers on 12 May 1992.

5.  The findings of the board of officers were that she committed a serious offense by the use of marijuana and recommended that she be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

6.  On 5 June 1992 the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of the board and directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and separated from active duty for misconduct under other than honorable conditions.  This memorandum also directed that the applicant be provided a copy of the entire discharge packet.

7.  On 18 June 1992 order #117-19 was issued by First Army Headquarters that reduced the applicant from E6 to E1 effective 18 June 1992.  On that date that headquarters also issued order #117-20 that reassigned her from her recruiting battalion to the transition point at Fort Meade, Maryland for separation processing effective 26 June 1992.  This order was amended on 25 June by order #122-11 to correct her grade to E1.

8.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (report of separation) shows that she was discharged effective 26 June 1992 under authority of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct.  Her character of service was under other than honorable conditions.  She had 13 years, 2 months and 15 days active service and no lost time.  Block 21 of the DD Form 214 states that she was unavailable to sign the form.

9.  Additional documents in the applicant’s records include a memorandum from her military counsel to the Recruiting Command requesting a legal review and rehearing of her proposed separation.  This document is dated 14 July 1992.

10.  A 22 October 1992 memorandum from the recruiting battalion commander contains a request to the brigade headquarters that the applicant be detailed for no more than 90 days from the recruiting station to the guidance shop because she had been suspended from recruiting duties.  Her grade is listed as E6.

11.  A 9 November 1992 statement from the personnel NCO at the brigade headquarters states that she received the battalion commander’s request on 26 October 1992.  She started work on the request on 29 October 1992 and after locating the file learned that the applicant had been reduced to E1 and discharged on 26 June 1992.  She provided this information to the recruiting battalion and informed them that her pay would be stopped because she was on duty without authority.

12.  A 23 November 1992 memorandum from the Recruiting Command Headquarters to Fort Meade requested that the applicant’s reduction and separation orders be amended with an effective date of 1 November 1992 because she had continued to work at the recruiting station until 29 October 1992.  Neither she nor her unit was aware that she had been discharged on 26 June 1992.  There is no evidence of record that this request was ever acted on.

13.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 19 June 1995 for an upgrade of her discharge and forgiveness of her debt from the government for the pay she received after the effective date of her discharge. On 13 January 1997 the ADRB voted to grant her a discharge under honorable conditions but was without authority to act on the debt forgiveness issue.  NOTE: The applicant’s DD Form 214’s prepared at the time of separation and the revision prepared by the ADRB show an incorrect SSAN.  The Review Boards Agency Support Division will administratively correct this record.

14.  Information provided by the Defense Finance and Accounting System (DFAS) revealed that the applicant has a debt to the US Government in the amount of $8,934.54 for unearned pay and allowances from 26 June through 30 October 1992 and $1,383.71 has been collected.  Additionally, the DFAS has notified the credit bureaus of her overdue debt to the government.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides that the separation authority will reduce to the lowest enlisted grade any soldier who is to be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  The regulation does not specify the time frame prior to separation that the reduction will be accomplished.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant was reduced in grade and separated in accordance with applicable regulations, there appears to have been a total breakdown in the separation process when neither the unit nor the applicant was provided the required information to begin her separation.  It also appears that the transition center separated the applicant without clearance forms being presented by the command or inquiring as to why she had not reported in accordance with published orders.

2.  An injustice was done when the applicant was allowed to continue to perform her duties without the knowledge that she had been reduced in grade on 18 June 1992 and separated effective 26 June 1992.

3.  Additionally, an injustice occurred when the applicant was determined by the DFAS to have a debt to the government of $8,934.54 for pay she received from 26 June to 30 October 1992.  Furthermore the DFAS has informed the credit bureaus that she has an overdue debt to the government which may have an adverse impact on her credit rating.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by amending orders #117-19, dated 18 June 1992, of the individual concerned to change the effective date of reduction to E1 to 30 October 1992;

b.  by amending orders #117-20, dated 18 June 1992 to show her grade as E1, to show her reporting date as 30 October 1992, and to show her date of discharge as 30 October 1992;

c.  by revoking orders #122-11, dated 25 June 1992, since they are no longer required to amend her grade at separation;
d.  by amending her DD Form 214 to show her date of separation as 30 October 1992 and amending her net active service and effective date of pay grade as appropriate.  NOTE:  Her SSAN should also be administratively corrected on her separation documents;

e.  by providing the necessary documentation to the DFAS to show that the applicant was entitled to full pay and allowances in the grade of E6 until 30 October 1992, her date of separation and;

f.  by the DFAS canceling her debt, including any penalties and interest, returning all monies collected in settlement of the debt to date, and providing documentation to the credit bureaus and the applicant as appropriate to show that this debt has been cancelled.

BOARD VOTE:  

__TNK___  __JPI___  __JPS___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Thomas N. Kuhn
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12698/AR1998013573	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990218	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.