MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            16 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070574

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect that her service during her previous two enlistments resulted in honorable discharges.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she needs her DD Form 214 to reflect that her service during her previous two enlistments were terminated honorably, so that she may obtain her benefits.  She goes on to state that she has been diagnosed with a disease that was the result of her military service and because she received a discharge under other than honorable conditions, she has been unable to obtain much needed medical benefits.  She also states that because her DD Form 214 did not properly deem her service from 1980 to 1986 as honorable, she has been denied much needed benefits.

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

She enlisted in Miami, Florida, on 29 December 1980 for a period of 3 years.  She was discharged on 19 October 1983, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  She reenlisted on 20 October 1983 and was discharged on 4 December 1986, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  She again reenlisted on 5 December 1986, for a period of 5 years and a selective reenlistment bonus.  She was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 8 May 1988.

On 4 September 1990, charges were preferred against the applicant for submitting a false temporary duty (TDY) order (DD Form 1610) in October 1988; for stealing approximately $5,018.00 in November 1988, property of the United States Government; for submitting a false TDY claim voucher for $5,018.00; for falsely drafting and authenticating false TDY orders along with false statements in lieu of receipts; for falsely presenting a travel voucher to an officer of the United States on or about 28 June 1989; for a false and fraudulent claim in the amount of $5,992.00 and for submitting a false claim against the government for damaged household goods in the amount of $580.00 ($290.00 each for two items).

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, her records do contain a duly constituted DD Form 214, which the applicant refused to sign.  It shows that she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 January 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She had served 10 years and 13 days of total active service.

In item 18 of her DD Form 214, all of her periods of service are listed in accordance with the applicable regulation.

On 12 March 2002, she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge.  She asserted to that board that she was not guilty of the offenses for which she was charged and contended that her service should not be characterized under other than honorable conditions, based on one isolated incident in over 10 years of service.  The ADRB granted her a personal appearance before that board in Washington, D.C. on 4 March 2002.  After reviewing all of the evidence and testimony submitted by the applicant, as well as the evidence of record, the ADRB voted unanimously to deny her request. 

Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation and issuance of the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part, that soldiers who are honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment, in which a DD Form 214 was not issued, will have all periods listed in item 18 of that form.  A characterization for each period is not required for honorable service.

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 charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must 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 and there are not now nor have there ever been any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such a 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.  While the Board understands her desire to receive veteran’s benefits for her service prior to the enlistment in which she was discharged, the Board has no authority over the programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Inasmuch as her DD Form 214 was properly prepared at the time of separation, there is no basis to approve her request to further change her DD Form 214.  

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

___dh___  __fe ____  __mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070574	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1991/01/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	GD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689	144.7000/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.