MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072053

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she enlisted with every good intention.  However, her maturity level did not equal her ambition and consequently she made many bad decisions.  She requests that her age, her personal problems (bad marriage), and her remorse be taken into consideration.  Also, she was told at the time that her discharge would be upgraded six months from her separation.  She provides no supporting evidence.

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

She was born on 26 November 1958.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on       13 September 1977.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91C (Clinical Specialist).  She was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 5th Infantry Division, Fort Polk, LA.

On 4 June 1979, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 12 June 1979, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging her with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 September 1978 to on or about 1 June 1979. 

On 13 June 1979, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully possessing some quantity of marijuana.  

A Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, FDCF Form 691A, dated 13 June 1979 shows that the applicant indicated she went AWOL because she enlisted to be a medic but found herself working in the motor pool and doing other unrelated jobs which she did not want to do.  She requested transfer to the hospital but it was denied.  She decided in basic training that she did not like the Army.  She thought it to be unfeeling and did not respect the rights of service members.  She did not like being in a tactical unit.  She went to live with her husband in New York City.  She claimed the Army was holding her back from accomplishing her goals and wanted out.

On or about 12 June 1979, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation     635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that she might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

The company and battalion level commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s request and that she be given a discharge UOTHC.  

Two endorsements approving the applicant’s request by the appropriate authority are filed in her records.  One, undated and unsigned, directed she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  A second, dated 2 August 1979 and signed, directed she receive a Discharge Certificate UOTHC.

On 27 August 1979, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 20 days of creditable active service and had 269 days of lost time. 

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically stated that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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 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.  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.  She was almost 20 years old at the time she went AWOL.  There is no evidence to show she had a bad marriage.  The FDCF Form 691A dated 13 June 1979 indicated she lived with her husband after she went AWOL.  Considering the length of her AWOL, the characterization of her discharge as UOTHC was and still is appropriate.

3.  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

__TSK__  __JTM__  __HBO___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072053	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1979/09/13	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.