MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 September 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083452

	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:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann, 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to that of a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That she has encountered substantial prejudice in civilian life because of her UOTHC discharge and she believes enough time has elapsed and it should be removed from her record.

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

That on 5 March 1980, she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program (DEP).  On 14 March 1980, she was separated from the DEP and she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  The applicant completed the training requirements and she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 05C (Radio Teletype Operator).  However, on 3 October 1980, she was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, and she performed the duties of a supply specialist.

On 11 March 1981, nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from her unit from 20 February - 1 March 1981.  Her punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, the forfeiture of $116 pay per month for 1 month, and 14 days of extra duty.

On 1 October 1981, the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-3.  She left her unit again in an AWOL status from 7 December 1981 until she returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 8 February 1982.  

On 10 February 1982, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the above period of AWOL.  On 11 February 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200.  She was advised that she could receive a UOTHC discharge.  She authenticated a statement with her signature acknowledging that she understood the ramifications and effects of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant declined to submit a statement in her own behalf.  

On 11 February 1982, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending approval of her request for separation.

On 9 March 1982, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of her request with a UOTHC discharge.  He stated the applicant's conduct had rendered her triable by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a 

bad conduct discharge.  He also stated that, based on the applicant's previous record, punishment would have a minimal rehabilitative effect and that he believed a discharge would be in the best interest of all concerned.  On the same date, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval with a UOTHC discharge.  On 16 March 1982, the separation authority approved the request and directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1 and separated with a UOTHC discharge.  

On 28 April 1982, the applicant was separated in absentia with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  She had completed 1 year, 9 months, and 1 day of active military service and she had 74 days of lost time due to being AWOL. 

On 15 March 1991, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge. 

AR 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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is 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 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 voluntary request for separation under the provisions of AR 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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  

3.  The Board took into consideration the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding her discharge.

4.  At the time of the applicant's request for separation, she acknowledged she understood the consequence of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  The passing of time alone does not provide a basis for the upgrade of a discharge.

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

__jlp___  __aao___  __phm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083452	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030923	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820428	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.