MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            31 July 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001053842

	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. P. A. Castle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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:  Reconsideration of her request to upgrade the character of her discharge from under other than honorable conditions to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, the one minimal violation, as she calls it, while in the Army does not equal the severe punishment of injustices she has been made to suffer.  She believes after the Board reads her statement and other submissions of evidence they will clearly see why her discharge should be changed to honorable.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of her case (AR1999033100) on 22 August 2000.

The applicant submits to the Board a lengthy description of her childhood, her Army career and her life now in hopes that the Board can see their way through changing her discharge.  Her childhood was tough and her desire to join the Army was to get a good education and better herself.  She describes the prejudices she encountered in the Army as a female.  While assigned to the Military Personnel Center in Alexandria she says the MSG in charge made sexual advances towards her and that her rejection of those advances resulted in her receipt of orders for reassignment to Germany.  She tried to get out of the assignment because she did not want to leave her husband who was also in the Army and about to retire, and that her mother was sick at the time.  All of these stresses, she states, lead her to go AWOL to get out of the assignment.  She then turned herself in after 30 days.

The applicant submits two new letters of character reference from her husband and her 21 year old child.  The husband’s letter supports the applicant’s account of events and the child’s letter explains her mother as her source of inspiration to her and her friends through an exemplary and moralistic attitude.

As evidence of post service accomplishments the applicant submits various certificates of training, completion of a medical assistant program, certificate of commendation and recognition, a special achievement award from the Department of Justice, and college transcripts with 11 complete college hours.

The applicant submits an article about a Marine who smuggled an alien into the United States and when caught was granted an early discharge.  The Marine, unlike her, was given an early discharge.  Another submitted article is about two Marines who smuggled two aliens into the United States in their Army footlockers as baggage and unlike her were subsequently offered military legal counsel.

Additionally, the applicant submits a separate sworn and notarized statement describing medical problems she incurred as a result of her service in the Army.  She says she has skin irritation, spot discolorations, burns, and excessive stinging as a result of sun exposure.  This low sun tolerance came from contamination by chemical biological and radiological agents in the Army after the gas chamber exercises.  She also states that while assigned to Ft. Knox, KY she fell on the slick hardwood floors and as a result had back surgery.  Also, she twisted her ankle while at boot camp.  She says she can no longer sit or stand for long periods of time and has many health problems that could be resolved if she had veteran’s benefits.

Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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 applicant has provided no evidence that the type of discharge she received was unjust or in error.

2.  There is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant was the victim of sexual abuse and no evidence to show the existence of any emotional or physical abuse by her superiors.  Rather, the evidence shows the applicant made a deliberate contemplated decision to voluntarily go AWOL to avoid an assignment overseas after she had discussed it with friends and family.

3.  The Board acknowledges that the applicant’s post service character has been beyond reproach for over 25 years.  The Board also recognizes the applicant’s accomplishments of post service education and certificates of achievement; however, neither justify the relief requested.

4.  The articles submitted by the applicant as a comparison of inequity in the character of discharge she received and unlike the Marine in the article she was not afforded legal counsel are deemed by the Board as not relevant.  The one article does not reveal the character of discharge the Marine received and there is no evidence that at the time of the applicant’s separation she was not afforded legal counsel.

5.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

6.  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

___wtm__  ____jm__  ___ao___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001053842	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.