MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 August 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040173

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  She had a medical problem with her left ear.  While on leave she had been seen by a civilian doctor who told her she had a hole in her ear drum and should not be serving.  She had tried to solve the problem.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 August 1997.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist). 

The applicant’s service medical records are not available and there is no evidence to show she completed a separation physical examination.  A Medical and Dental Preparation for Overseas Movement form, DA Form 4036-R, was partially completed on 17 December 1997.  It shows she was due to be reassigned to Korea on 23 January 1998.  The form shows she did meet the medical fitness standards outlined in Army Regulation 40-501.  The dental status portion of the form had not been completed.

On 24 March 1998, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging her with being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 31 January to on or about 20 March 1998. 

On 24 March 1998, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

On 20 October 1998, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 20 November 1998, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She had completed 1 year, 1 month and 4 days of creditable active service and had 48 days of lost time. 

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, retention and separation.  In pertinent part, it states that any perforation of the tympanic membrane (eardrum) is a cause for rejection for enlistment.  A perforated tympanic membrane is not a cause for referral to a medical evaluation board, however.

On 26 May 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.  In her application to the ADRB, she mentioned her medical problem and that she had often visited sick bay.  She also stated that although she was not bisexual many of her roommates were.  It did not bother her until they tried to convert her.  Her “AWOL was the reasoning for this issue.”

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 this requirement.

2.  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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  The applicant had an opportunity to make a statement of mitigating circumstances in her own behalf but did not do so.  

3.  The applicant provides no evidence to show that she had a perforated eardrum.  She provides no evidence to show that she presented the civilian doctor’s examination report that she states showed she had a perforated eardrum to military authorities, either her chain of command or medical authorities.  In any case, a perforated eardrum is not a cause for referral to a medical evaluation board.  While it may have been a cause to reject the applicant for enlistment it was not a cause to discharge her once she completed training.  It was not justification for her going AWOL.  

4.  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

__tdh___  __aao___  __gjw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040173	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000815	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19981120	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.