MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           18 June 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071013

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge, under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was just married and found out she was pregnant and was no longer able to deal with the stress of military life.  Her daughter was born on 25 August 1982 and then a son on 4 August 1983.  She suffered an epilepsy stroke in December 1985 and another in 1990.  She also states that she was not able to adapt to military life and her records should show that there were ongoing personal problems.  Her discharge was inequitable because of one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no adverse action. 

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

She enlisted in the Reserve, Delayed Entry Program on 18 February 1981.

She enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, as a private, pay grade E-1 on 24 March 1981.

She completed her basic and advance training and was assigned military occupational specialty as a food service specialist on 20 July 1981.

She was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 1 December 1981.

She was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 24 December 1981 and returned to military control on 1 January 1982.

She was reported AWOL on 4 January 1982 and dropped from the rolls as a deserted on 2 February 1982.

She surrendered to military authorities on 10 October 1983.

On 19 October 1983, she was charged with 1 specification of AWOL from 24 December 1981 to 1 January 1982 and 1 specification of AWOL from 4 January 1982 to 18 October 1983.

On 21 October 1983, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  She stated that she went AWOL because of personal problems and prior to going AWOL she used her chain of command to solve her problems.  She acknowledged she understood the consequences of a discharge UOTHC and under no circumstances did she desire further rehabilitation and had no desire to perform further military service.

On 26 October 1983, her command recommended approval of her request and that a UOTHC discharge certificate be issued.  Her commander states that the applicant had no motivation for continued service and would not respond to either counseling or rehabilitation.

On 31 October 1983, the appropriate authority approved her request for discharge and directed that a UOTHC discharge certificate be furnished and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  

She was separated on 2 December 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of court-martial, in pay grade E-1.  She was credited with 10 months and 21 days net active service and time lost due to AWOL from 25 December to 28 December 1981 and 4 January 1982 to 17 October 1983.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge UOTHC 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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of her discharge.  She has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.  

2.  Her contentions that she was unable to deal with the stress of military life, her ongoing personal problems and that her discharge was based on one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse action have been noted by the Board.  However, the applicant departed AWOL for a period of over 20 months, a serious instance of misconduct punishable by court-martial.  Her command stated that the applicant had no motivation for continued service and would not respond to either counseling or rehabilitation.  It is also noted that she has not shown she sought help within her command for her personal problems prior to going AWOL.  

3.  The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  Although she may now feel that she made the wrong choice, she should not be allowed to change her mind at this late date.

4.  The Board also notes her contentions that she suffered an epilepsy stroke in 1985 and another in 1990.  However, while the Board is empathetic, the applicant's current stated medical problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her discharge.

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

_mmm____  __alr___  _kak____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071013	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020618	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.