MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           15 September 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026319

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she had mental problems while in service.  She further states that while in service she was beaten very badly.

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

On 30 September 1979, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  She completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B10 (Food Service Specialist).  The highest grade she achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 4 February 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for disobeying a lawful order.  Her imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $100.00 pay and 7 days extra duty.

On 6 April 1981, the applicant accepted an NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for dereliction in the performance of her duties.  Her imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 2 months and 30 days restriction.

On 12 August 1981, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial of four specifications of disobeying a lawful order.  However, she was only convicted of one specification of disobeying a lawful order.  The term “disobey a lawful order” was later changed to “fail to obey”.  She was sentenced to a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, 45 days extra duty and a reduction to pay grade 
E-1.  

Between October 1980 and May 1981, the applicant was counseled on eleven  different occasions for poor duty performance, for dereliction of duty, for coming to work late, for her negative attitude and personal hygiene and for violating visitation rights.

The applicant’s military record indicates that on two occasions the applicant came to work with two black eyes.  She explained to her superiors that she had been in a fight.  Particulars regarding the fight are missing from her files.

On 8 September 1981, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s misconduct and action, which indicated that she could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to her.  She requested consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.

On 15 September 1981, the applicant was found mental and physically fit for retention.

On 10 November 1981, the applicant with counsel appeared before a board of officers.  The board found that the applicant did commit a serious misconduct and recommended that she be eliminated from military service, with a discharge UOTHC. 

On 30 November 1981, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance discharge UOTHC.  On 4 December 1981, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct with a discharge UOTHC.  She had completed 2 years, 2 months and 5 days of creditable active service. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures 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.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

On 14 October 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge.

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 applicant appeared before a properly constituted administrative separation board, which recommended discharge UOTHC.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. 

3.  The contentions of the applicant concerning her mental and personal problems have been noted by this Board.  However, the record shows that she was medically and psychiatrically cleared for separation.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all 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

__jma___  __tsk___  _kan____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026319	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990915	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19811204	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chp14 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.