MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                          7 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:                 AR2000036019

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 character of service be corrected to show “Uncharacterized” due to entry level separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that item 24 (Character of Service) of her DD Form 214 is incorrect and that she served less than 180 days of active duty.  In support of her applicant she submits a copy of her DD Form 214.

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

She enlisted on 20 August 1991 as a medical specialist.

The applicant departed AWOL on 7 December 1991 while attending Advanced Individual Training (AIT) at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, and remained AWOL until she surrendered to military authorities at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on 23 September 1992 (291 days).  Charges were preferred against the applicant for this offense on 23 September 1992.

On 29 September 1992, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, she admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that she might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  She also elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

On 28 October 1992, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  She was discharged on 13 November 1992 with a total of 5 months and 17 days of creditable service and 291 days of lost time due to AWOL.  

Item 24 (Character of Service) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge on 24 May 1994.  The ADRB determined that her discharge was proper and equitable and denied her request on 30 January 1997.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 the charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although and honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Paragraph 3-9, of Army Regulation 635-200 governs uncharacterized separations of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-9(a) applies to entry level status separations.  It states in pertinent part that (1) a separation will be described as an entry level separation with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a soldier is in entry level status, except in the following circumstances: (a) When characterization Under Other Than Honorable Conditions is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case.  (b) The Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as Honorable is clearly warranted by presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.  This characterization is authorized when the soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligations, convenience of the Government and Secretarial plenary authority.

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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that item 24 (Character of Service)
of her DD Form 214 is incorrect and that she served less than 180 days of active duty.  However, the Board also noted that the applicant departed AWOL while in an entry level status and remained absent for 291 days.  There is no evidence a separation action was initiated while she was present for duty or AWOL.

2.  Evidence or record shows that upon return from AWOL the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

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.  The Board noted that discharge under other than honorable conditions was authorized under this provision of regulation and was the character of service ultimately approved in this case.

4. The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record, that item 24 (Character of Service) was incorrect.  The applicant has also failed to show that her discharge was in error or that her rights were violated during the discharge process.
5.  Based on the foregoing, the Board found that the characterization of the applicant’s service as under other than honorable conditions was warranted due to her lengthy period of AWOL; therefore, the characterization of her service currently shown on her DD Form 214 was properly determined in accordance with applicable regulations and is correct as currently constituted.

6.  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.

7.  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:

MKP____  ESC____  JPS_____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036019	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000607	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200, C,10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.