MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            25 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070234

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was an outstanding soldier who did not commit a crime.  She goes on to state that she never received the benefit of counsel from any representative of the Army to discuss her situation at the time and that she has never been arrested or even received a parking ticket.  She would like to serve her country again and needs her discharge upgraded in order to do so. 

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

She enlisted in Syracuse, New York, on 26 October 1988 for a period of 4 years and training as a food service specialist.  She successfully completed her training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and was transferred to Fort Irwin, California, on 22 March 1989.  She was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 26 December 1990.

On 18 March 1991, charges were preferred against the applicant for conspring with another soldier to break-in and steal currency from the dining facility, for unlawfully entering the dining facility with intent to commit larceny, larceny of $1,100.00 and the wrongful receipt of stolen money ($100.00). 

On 19 March 1991, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In her request she indicated that she was making the request of her own free will, without coercion from anyone and that she was aware of the implications attached to her request.  She admitted guilt to the offenses for which she was charged or of lesser included offenses which were punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She also acknowledged that she understood that she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  She further elected to submit a statement in her own behalf whereas she contended that she had been a good soldier, that she had made restitution for the funds she took, that at the time she did not think her involvement was all that serious and that she desired to be discharged on 1 May 1991, because at the time she was 8½ months pregnant and could not travel.

On 1 May 1991, the appropriate authority  (a brigadier general) approved her request and directed that she be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 May 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She had served 2 years, 6 months and 13 days of total active service.

On 17 April 1992, she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting that her discharge be upgraded.  She contended at that time that her discharge was based on personal feelings instead of facts and that two other cooks had committed the larceny.  She contended that one other cook was involved and nothing happened to that soldier, even though the other two cooks were court-martialed.  She also contended that she was an excellent soldier and as such deserved at least a general discharge.  After reviewing the available evidence, the ADRB voted unanimously to deny her application on 17 February 1995.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 at any time after charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the offenses for which they have been charged or to lesser included offenses punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  They must also indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request, as well as the discharge they might receive. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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 voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by  court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert her innocence before a trial by court-martial, she voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on her records.  In doing so, she admitted guilt to the charges against her.  While she may now believe that she made the wrong choice, she should not be allowed to change her mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the charges against her. 
4.  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.

5.  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

___js ___  ___eja___  ___tl____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070234	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1991/05/08	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	GD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  144.7000	689/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.