PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           24 November 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11601

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		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 that her discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  She states that during the time of her discharge she was under stress due to an illness in her family and did not understand the consequences of her errors.

3.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 February 1981.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76P (Materiel Control and Accounting Specialist).  She was honorably separated on 2 September 1985 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 3 September 1985.

4.  There is no evidence of any disciplinary actions prior to the applicant departing absent without leave (AWOL).

5.  On 18 March 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging her with one specification of AWOL for the period 12 February to          14 March 1988.

6.  On 18 March 1988, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation  635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

7.  On 27 April 1988, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

8.  On 31 May 1988, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with a discharge UOTHC.  She had completed 7 years, 2 months and 27 days of creditable active service and had 31 days of lost time. 

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

10.  On 2 October 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was inequitable because the quality of her service did not warrant the granting of a discharge UOTHC.  That board granted her partial relief by upgrading her discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions and by restoring her grade to Specialist Four.

11.  The VA, in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that agency, generally holds that an individual who accepts a discharge prior to completion of his complete term of obligated service may not be eligible for benefits unless or until the VA determines that the early discharge amounted to a complete and unconditional separation from the service.

CONCLUSIONS: 

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  On 2 October 1998, the ADRB determined that her quality of service did not warrant a discharge UOTHC and upgraded her discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions with concurrent restoration of her grade to Specialist Four.

2  This Board agrees with the ADRB’s determination.  The applicant had seven years experience in the Army when she committed an offense punishable with a punitive discharge.  She voluntarily requested separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The narrative reason for separation is appropriate and the offense does not warrant granting her a fully honorable discharge.

3.  A general discharge qualifies a veteran for most, but not all VA benefits.  Although it would not be appropriate to change the records to show that the applicant was discharged with a fully honorable discharge from the reenlistment commencing on 3 September 1985, it appears that her honorable discharge of    2 September 1985 should be considered as having been issued as a complete and unconditional separation.

4.  The circumstances of the applicant’s honorable discharge on 2 September 1985 may work an injustice upon her by depriving her of consideration for certain VA benefits for the preceding period of service.

5.  In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be unjust to consider her honorable discharge of 2 September 1985 as other than a complete and unconditional separation from the military service.

6.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:  

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of her honorable discharge on 2 September 1985.

2.  That the Army Discharge Review Board’s directives be implemented.

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

GDP    CLA      RWG    GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                                                                      
					CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11601	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19981124	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880531	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 35-200 chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.