MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC98-10705

	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.

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

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		Member	

	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 was discharged from the service because her husband indicated that if she didn’t get out he would divorce her.

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

On 23 May 1969 the applicant enlisted in the Woman’s Army Corps of the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 18.  She successfully completed basic training at Fort McClellan, Alabama and advanced individual training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  Upon completion of AIT she was awarded military occupational specialty 91A (Medical Corpsman) and assigned to Letterman General Hospital, San Francisco, California for her first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record indicates that the highest rank she attained while on active duty was private/E-2.  There are no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition contained in the record. However, there is a history of AWOL related misconduct which includes the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ.

On 20 April 1970 the applicant accepted an NJP for being AWOL from 5 January to 11 March 1970.  Her punishment for this offense included a forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 2 months and 1 month restriction.

On 10 April 1970 the applicant consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish her separation for unsuitability, she completed her election of rights by making the following elections:  to waive her right to consideration of his case before a board of officers; to waive her right to personal appearance before a board of officers; to waive representation by counsel; and she elected not to make a statement in her own behalf.  

On 20 April 1970 the applicant’s unit commander forwarded the recommendation to separate the applicant for unsuitability, under the provisions of AR 635-212.  The commander cited the applicant’s negative response to rehabilitative attempts, her adamantly expressed desire to be separated from the Army, and her refusal to work as a medical corpsman, as the basis for the action.

On 23 April 1970 the appropriate authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant receive a GD.  Accordingly, on 30 April 1970 the applicant was discharged after completing 9 months and 2 days of active military service, and accruing 65 days of time lost due to AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a review of her case.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unsuitable for further military service.  

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 contention of the applicant that her discharge was the result of her husband threatening divorce was noted by the Board.  However, it is not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

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