MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029204

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone 		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer 		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 a record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), be set aside as well as the punishment she received. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that her due process rights were denied during the imposition of the NJP.  In support of her application, she submits an undated, 2-page memorandum to the Board, and a copy of a 28 August 1997 Proceeding in which the Board granted relief.  Under separate cover, she also provided numerous supporting documents, including a Military Police Report with attachments, and a copy of her NJP with her appeal.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Essentially as stated in the applicant’s undated memorandum.

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

She enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) for 8 years on 11 December 1995, rose to the rank of Private First Class (E-3), and was honorably discharged on 2 March 1997.  On 3 March 1997, she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 4 years, with a rank of Private (E-2) in Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 77F, Petroleum Supply Specialist.  She was assigned to a unit in Germany.

On 20 January 1999, the applicant was apprehended by military authorities and charged with the following offenses:  larceny of non-appropriated fund property, wrongful damage of government property, housebreaking, larceny of private property, false official statement, and false swearing.  The charges stemmed from a 14 January 1999 larceny at the Kaserne bowling lanes.

On 29 March 1999, the applicant was offered NJP by her battalion commander.  She accepted the NJP proceedings and requested a closed hearing at which she would present matters in her defense.  On 8 April 1999, before a closed hearing, the applicant’s battalion commander found her guilty of the offenses charged and imposed punishment of reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $479 per month for 2 months, 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction.  The applicant appealed and her appeal was denied.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency legal advisor.  The opinion found that the applicant received her due process rights and that the NJP proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for her rebuttal, but she did not respond.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant’s NJP proceeding was conducted in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies.  The punishment imposed was neither unjust nor disproportionate to the offense.

3.  The policies and procedures governing the imposition of NJP are set out in Title 10, United States Code, section 815 (Article 15, UCMJ), and in Army Regulation 27-10, chapter 3.  In this case, there is no evidence of significant departure from those established policies or procedures.

4.  The method in which another soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular 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

__jhl____  __jns____  __mhm__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029204	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000629	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	126.0000	
2.	126.0400	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.