MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            6 November 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060757

	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. Antoinette E. Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) “in lieu of trial by court-martial” be changed in order to allow her to reenlist.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, she believes her narrative reason for separation to be in error.  The applicant contends she was not in an absent without leave (AWOL) status for a total of 73 days, as specified in her separation documentation.  She states, she was in fact at the military installation while being counted as AWOL.  Therefore, she is requesting a change to block 28, in order to reenlist and continue serving her country.  In support of her application, she relies on several statements provided by “other soldiers and military personnel from 11 March to 22 May 2000”, about her whereabouts.  She contends these statements are included in her military records. 

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 November 2000, for 4 years.  She completed her basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, on 
4 October 1999.  She then began advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, but never completed military occupational specialty (MOS) training.

On 10 March 2000, she departed AWOL from Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  She was then dropped from the rolls and listed as a deserter.  

On 22 May 2000, she surrendered to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Stewart, Georgia.  On the same date, she was transferred to Special Processing Company, Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, Kentucky.  
On 25 May 2000 she was charged with being AWOL from 10 March to 22 May 2000.  She consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She acknowledged that she was guilty as charged or of a lesser-included offenses for which she could receive a punitive discharge.  She also acknowledged, that she understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that she might receive, including that she might lose some or all veteran benefits.  On the same day she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander recommended an other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC).  

On 26 May 2000, she was placed on excess leave pending separation processing.  On 5 November 2000, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed she received an general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions.

On 28 November 2000, the applicant was separated with a GD, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She had completed 11 months and 18 days of creditable service, 72 days of lost time due to being AWOL and 182 days of excess leave.  The highest grade she achieved was pay grade E-1.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, provides that the applicant could have received a punitive discharge for being absent without leave in excess of 30 days.

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 a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The requests may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or a general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

On 18 July 2001, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request to upgrade 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  In light of the applicant’s overall record of military service the character of the discharge is considered lenient treatment.

3.  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

__DSJ __  ___EJA _  ___DPH _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024587	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1999-09-28	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	AWOL Article 86 in excess of 30 days	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.