MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066778

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That her average conduct and efficiency ratings were very good.  She states that within the first 8 or 9 months she was promoted to the rank of private (E-3) and that it was not until after a new first sergeant was assigned to her unit when everything began to go wrong.  She goes on to state that the new first sergeant began to condone the sexual harassment and harmful pranks that were being played on her by the men in her unit.  She states that she completed training in communication and yet she was kept in front of a copy machine in a small office until she was eventually placed in the field to work in communication.  She states that she was late for formation and missed guard duty and was demoted and later discharged from the military.  She states that she did not know that her discharge was going to be less than honorable nor did she know that she had any other options.  She further states that due to her youth and immaturity, she was not equipped to deal with sexual harassment or the stress that the harassment placed on her new marriage.  She states that her chain of command abused its authority when it decided that she should be issued a general discharge and that her punishment was too severe and unfair.  She concludes by stating that she is now in therapy for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and it is time for the past injustice to be corrected.

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

On 17 August 1982, she enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. She successfully completed her training as a tactical wire operations specialist.  On 17 February 1983, she was advanced to pay grade E-2 and to pay grade E-3 on 17 August 1983.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 6 December 1983, for failure to go to her appointed place of duty.  Her punishment consisted of extra duty for 7 days.

On 5 January 1984, NJP was imposed against her again for failure to go to her appointed place of duty.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-2 and extra duty for 14 days.

On 2 February 1984, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for elimination from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  She acknowledged receipt of the notification on 3 February 1984 and, after consulting with counsel, she waived her rights indicating that she understood the effects of a less than honorable discharge; the rights available to her; and the effects of any action taken by her commander in waiving her rights.  
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 6 February 1984.  Accordingly, on 16 February 1984, the applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, as a result of unsatisfactory performance.  She completed 1 year and 6 months of total active service and was furnished a general discharge.

A review of the records fails to show that the applicant ever complained through her chain of command either verbally or in writing regarding sexual harassment.

On 27 December 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge.  At the time of her application to that board, she asserted that she did not blame anyone for her actions at the time but that she now believed that she could perform better and would like to reenlist.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contention that she was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years old at the time that she had NJP imposed against her for her first act of misconduct.

4.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, there is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence that shows that she was sexually harassed while she was in the Army or that her chain of command abused its authority by recommending her for discharge.  The evidence of record clearly shows that she was discharged only after she had NJP imposed against her twice for failure to go to her appointed place of duty.  She was also advised of the rights available to her and of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  After consulting with counsel she opted to waive her rights and considering the nature of her offenses, it does not appear that the general discharge that she received is too severe as her service was not totally honorable.

5.  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.

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

___mdm_  __kak ___  ___tl  ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066778	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1984/02/16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	572	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  661	144.6700	
2.  670	144.6710	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.