MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 June 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067634

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.		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 (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant made no contentions.

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

That she enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 November 1991 for 5 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police).  She completed basic and advanced individual training and, on 2 April 1992, she was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.  She served there without any recorded disciplinary problems.  On 26 May 1993, she was assigned to Italy.

On 22 June 1993, the applicant was counseled for failure to meet the minimal requirements to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test; on 5 and 6 August 1993, she was counseled for socializing with a Carabinieri (Italian National Police) while on patrol when she knew such behavior was prohibited, and for uttering worthless checks.

On 21 July 1993, the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) notified the applicant that her on-post check cashing privileges were suspended for 12 months.  On 19 August 1993, the applicant was notified that fifteen personal checks totaling $1,350.28 had been returned to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service due to insufficient funds.  She was also notified that it was her fourth offense and her check cashing privileges were suspended indefinitely.

On an unknown date in August 1993, the applicant enrolled in the Army Community Services Financial Assistance Program.  On 15 September 1993, DFAS notified her that a check she had written to AAFES in the amount of $500.00 had been dishonored due to insufficient funds.

On 30 September 1993, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for making and uttering 19 personal checks at various AAFES locations in Italy between 25 May-19 June 1993, and for failing to maintain sufficient funds in her account for payment.  Her punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 (suspended) and 14 days' extra duty and restriction.

On 3 October 1993, the applicant made a false statement to her chain of command when she was asked about a financial transaction between herself and another soldier.  The applicant obtained $650.00 from the soldier and wrote the soldier a personal check for $650.00 in order to purchase a stereo when the Post 

Exchange would not take her personal check.  The applicant's command questioned her about the transaction when the other soldier reported that the check had been returned due to insufficient funds.  The applicant made a false statement when she told her chain of command that her mother had sent her the stereo.

On 25 January 1994, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, with a GD.  The commander cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant's false official statement, her failure to obey a lawful order, and the uttering of worthless checks. 

On an unknown date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  She was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects.  She was also advised of the rights available to her.  The applicant submitted a personal statement, as well as statements from friends and coworkers.  In her personal statement, she said that she was sorry for the incidents that led to her separation action and she requested a second chance.  She stated that she believed extenuating and mitigating factors led to her actions because family problems had caused her to be under a great deal of stress.  She also requested an honorable discharge if she were to be separated, so that she would not experience the stigma associated with a GD when looking for employment.

On an unknown date, the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be separated with a GD and not to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.  

On 15 February 1994, the applicant was separated with a GD for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.  She had completed 2 years, 3 months, and 9 days of creditable military service and she had no recorded lost time.

On 30 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge. 

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 and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may also be awarded.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for it 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

__sk____  __jtm___  __teo___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067634	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020606	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19940215	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.