MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

          IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:              5 August 1998                
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AC98-07706

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms.	June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr.	John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr.	James M. Alward		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that her general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she believes her records are unjust and she was never given the opportunity for rehabilitation.

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

On 6 April 1995 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years and 
20 weeks at the age of 19.  She successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Lee, Virginia.  Upon completion of AIT she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist), attended but did not successfully complete the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was assigned to overseas duty in Germany for her first permanent duty station.

The highest rank the applicant held on active duty was private first class/E-3 and she received the Army Service Ribbon and the National Defense Service Medal. There are no other acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition contained in the record.  However, there is an extensive record of disciplinary infractions which include the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions.

On 22 May 1996 the applicant accepted an NJP for willfully disobeying an order from a superior commissioned officer on 4 May 1996.  The applicant’s punishment for this offense included a reduction to private/E-2; forfeiture of $100.00; 14 days of extra duty; and an oral reprimand.

On 18 December 1996 the applicant accepted a second NJP for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer; wrongfully communicate a threat; and disorderly conduct, all taking place on 4 November 1996.  The resultant punishment included a reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $204.00 (suspended); and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

Between January 1996 and April 1997 the applicant received 12 formal counseling statements for a myriad of disciplinary infractions which included: poor duty performance; multiple indebtedness; delinquent payment notices; disrespect; domestic dispute based on a Military Police blotter report; unauthorized wear of the BDU; late for formation; lack of attention to detail; lack of self-discipline; failure to prepare for an equipment inspection; and multiple failing to pay just debts.

On 5 June 1997 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate her, under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 for misconduct, a pattern of misconduct.  The unit commander cited as his reasons for the action the applicant’s habitual indebtedness, discreditable involvement with rental agencies, unresponsible and unaccountable behavior, and failure to be at her appointed place of duty.  The unit commander also recommended the applicant receive a GD.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the unit commander’s notification, consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, completed her election of rights.  The applicant submitted a statement in her own behalf in which she, in effect, requested an opportunity for rehabilitation.

On 2 July 1997 the appropriate authority waived the requirement for a rehabilitative transfer, approved the separation action, and directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a GD.  Accordingly, on 18 July 1997 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 3 months, and 13 days of active military service.

On 23 April 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to her discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedure 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.

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. The Board concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.

2.  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.

3.  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