MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  15 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999023790

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth, Buchanon 		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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:  That her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was under a great deal of emotional stress.  Her brother had been murdered and she had requested a transfer so that she could be closer to her family, but she had been denied.  In support of her request she submits a statement written in her own behalf, dated 2 February 1999, a copy of her DD Form
214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty), other separation documents, a charge sheet, and a copy of her brother’s death certificate.

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

That on 5 February 1980, she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 36C (Wire Systems Installer/Operator).  She completed basic and advanced individual training and on 30 May 1980, she was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland.

On 4 November 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military (UCMJ) for failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 9 October and twice on 10 October 1980.  Her punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 3 December 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for unlawfully pushing another soldier on 5 November 1990; for assaulting a noncommissioned officer (NCO); by also pushing and grabbing her on 19 November 1980; for failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 10 and 
23 November 1980; for disobeying a lawful order on 30 September 1980, and on 
13 November 1980; and for using provoking language towards a NCO on 19 and 
30 November 1980.

On 4 December 1980, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  She was advised that the offense for which she was charged could lead to a UOTHC discharge.  She authenticated a statement in which she acknowledged that she understood the ramifications of a UOTHC discharge.  She also submitted a statement in her own behalf.

On 8 December 1980, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that the applicant’s request be approved with a UOTHC discharge.  Further, he stated that prior to the offenses that were stated on the charge sheet, the applicant had been an unsatisfactory soldier with little or no rehabilitative potential.  On 10 December 1980, competent authority approved her request.  

On 12 December 1980, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge by reason of an administrative discharge for conduct triable by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  She had completed 10 months, and 8 days of active military service and she had no recorded lost time. 

There is nothing in the available records to indicate that the applicant ever requested a transfer and was denied. 

Neither is there any evidence available that indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge.

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although, an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was then considered appropriate.

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.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that she was under a great deal of stress as a result of personal circumstances.  The Board empathizes with her in the loss of her family member; however, the Board determined that there were other legitimate avenues she could have pursued in resolving her personal problems in lieu of offenses of misconduct.  

3.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations then in effect.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

5.  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

TNK____  EB______  MDM____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023790	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850111	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CHAPTER 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.