APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That she be restored to her former rank of Specialist E-4 (SPC E-4).

APPLICANT STATES:   In effect, that her rank of SPC  was wrongfully taken from her.  She was on a suspended reduction due to non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which she doesn’t believe she deserved in the first place.  The suspension was vacated due to her supposedly disrespecting a non-commissioned officer.  Also, her unit did not submit her Article 138, UCMJ complaint to the general court-martial convening authority as required by regulation.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show: 

She was born on 9 September 1973.  She completed 12 years of formal education.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 February 1991.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76J (Medical Records Specialist).

On 30 August 1995, while assigned to the Vicenza, Italy, Dental Clinic, the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-3, apparently as a result of a vacation of a suspended non-judicial punishment action under Article 15, UCMJ.  The Article 15 is not available.

At one point after the suspension was vacated, the applicant filed an Article 138 complaint.

Article 138, UCMJ, complaints of wrongs, states any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made.  The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint.

The applicant was released from active duty on 30 November 1995, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 8, for pregnancy, in pay grade E-3.  She had completed 4 years, 9 months and 17 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the Article 15 proceedings, and the subsequent vacation of the suspension of reduction to pay grade E-3, were conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations and that the punishment imposed was within legal limits.

3.  Without reviewing the Article 138 action, this Board cannot determine if the applicant may have had a valid complaint against her commander.  In any event, the applicant had a choice – remain on station and see that her Article 138 complaint received the proper follow-up or continue with her separation processing.  She chose to continue with her separation processing.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                Loren G. Harrell
					 	Director