MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF       

		BOARD DATE:           4 September 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003083993

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor . 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis 		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 general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she has found it difficult to secure a job with a GD.  In support of her application, she provides a copy of her separation document (DD Form 214).

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

She entered active duty in the Regular Army on 20 August 1997.  She successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Lee, Virginia.  Upon completion of AIT, she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A (Automobile Logistics Specialist).  

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was private first class.

The applicant’s record does reveal a disciplinary history that includes her acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 15 March 1993, for failing to obey a lawful order and making a false official statement.  The punishment imposed included a reduction to private/E-2.

In addition, the applicant’s record shows that she was formally counseled by members of his chain of command on several occasions, between June 1998 and March 1999, for a myriad of disciplinary infractions that included repeated indebtedness, missing formations, failure to follow company curfew policy, failing company inspections, and the poor appearance of her area.  

On 21 April 1999, the applicant was notified by her unit commander that separation action was being initiated against her for patterns of misconduct under the provisions chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of such a separation, the rights available to her, and the effect of any action taken by her in waiving her rights.

On 17 May 1999, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that she receive as GD.  On 26 May 1999, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of her discharge, she had completed a total of 1 year, 9 months. And 7 days of active military service.  

On 6 August 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge after determining that it was proper and equitable.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 contains the policy guidance for separation by reason of misconduct.  The issuance of 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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that her discharge should be upgraded because she has found it difficult to secure a job with a GD.  However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the Board finds that her discharge accurately reflects her overall record of undistinguished service.

3.  .  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.

4.  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

__FCJ___  __BJE__  ___RO__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083993	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/08/	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1999/05/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.