MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 July 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027619

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to under honorable conditions.  She submits copies of her military personnel and medical records in support of her application.

APPLICANT STATES:  That her discharge should have been upgraded 6 months after she was separated.  She has had no bad time for over 5 years.

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

She enlisted and entered active duty on 7 January 1981 with prior USAR service. She was punished under Article 15, UCMJ on 5 February 1982 for failure to go to her place of duty and reduced to grade E-3.  In September 1982 she was promoted to grade E-4 and in December 1982 she was assigned to Germany as a personnel specialist.  The available record shows that she was reduced to grade E-2 effective 14 February 1984 but the reduction action is not in the available record.

The applicant was promoted to grade E-4 again effective 1 December 1984.  On 27 June 1985 charges were preferred against the applicant for soliciting to obstruct justice (tampering with evidence).  The unit commander recommended trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.

Although the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial is not in the available record, the unit commander’s endorsement, dated 24 July 1995, recommends that her request be approved.  The commander states that she had admitted to smoking marijuana with her husband and a recent drug test had shown positive for the substance.

The separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the request and directed issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  Effective 27 August 1985 the applicant was separated under authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  She had 4 years, 7 months, and 21 days creditable service and no lost time.

She applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge.  On 16 December 1987 the ADRB, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny relief in her request based on the seriousness of the offenses committed.

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.  There are no provisions for an automatic discharge review or upgrade after separation.
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 chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

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

__jh____  __rvo___  __rwa___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027619	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990708	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850827	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CHAP 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.