MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           3 October 2000                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043626

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she met all of the requirements, but she was unfairly removed from active duty.

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

On 24 May 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, with 
8 months and 13 days of prior inactive service.  She completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76P10 (Materiel Control and Accounting Specialist).  On 31 March 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged after serving 2 years, 10 months and 7 days of creditable active service.  On 1 April 1988; she immediately reenlisted for a period of 3 years.  The highest grade she achieved was pay grade E-5.

On 4 October 1989, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for leaving her appointed place of duty without proper authority.  Her imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $247.00 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 17 November 1989, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to obey an order given by a military policeman during an investigation. 

On 21 June 1990, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for leaving her appointed place of duty without proper authority, for being disrespectful in language and deportment and for disorderly conduct.  Her imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-4, a forfeiture of $594.00 pay per month for 2 months and 30 days extra duty.

The applicant’s record indicates that she was counseled on numerous occasions for several occasions of failure to repair, for passing out religious literature while on duty, for unacceptable personal behavior, for failing the physical fitness test, for poor duty performance, for disobeying a lawful order and for being disrespectful.  She was also counseled on numerous occasions in an attempt to rehabilitate.  

A mental status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis or other disorders qualifying her for disposition through medical channels.  She was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings. 

On 25 June 1990, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct with a general discharge.  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 consulted with legal counsel and waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.  She did not submit a statement in her own behalf.

On 29 June 1990, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the issuance of a General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  On 6 July 1990, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-4 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, with a general discharge.  She had completed 
5 years, 1 month and 13 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 leaves.  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 July 2000, 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 this requirement.

2.  The contention of the applicant has been noted by the Board.  However, it is not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

3.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__jns___  __rjw___  __rtd___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043626	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001003	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19900706	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp14 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.