MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           26 August 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084086

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert  L. Duecaster		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. Troup		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 general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions (UHC) be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that her discharge should be upgraded due to her previous circumstances.  She states, that she has no arrest record nor has she ever been court-martialed.  She further states, that she was frightened into leaving the service and was used by her command, in order to get to someone else. She also believes this should not have happened.  She claims, after leaving the service, she went to school, held a private “investigative operative” license and was a bonded employee.  She further claims, that her employer’s have asked her why she does not possess an honorable discharge.  She states that she did not know she could ask for an upgrade.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1974.  She completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) and was awarded military occupational specialty 75B (Unit Clerk).  She was then assigned to duty in her MOS at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  On 24 September 1975, she was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for duty as a unit clerk.
  
On 6 August 1976, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant 
for wrongfully having in her possession fourteen (14) ounces, more or less of marijuana on 30 July 1976.  

On 10 August 1976, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation  
AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Her request acknowledged that she was guilty as charged or of a lesser-included offense for which she could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She indicated that she did not desire further rehabilitation and that she had no desire to perform military service.  She acknowledged that she understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge, including that she might lose some or all veteran benefits.  The applicant also submitted a statement in her own behalf, in which she pointed out that she never had any prior disciplinary actions taken against her.  She realized that her possession of the marijuana was wrong.  She added that she was attempting to correct her wrong by cooperating with the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and asked that her request be approved.

On 26 September 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed she be discharged under honorable conditions and issued a general discharge certificate.  On 24 October 1976, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  
She had 1 year, 10 months and 6 days of creditable service and no lost time.  The highest pay grade she held was E-3.

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.  Although an general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, as then in effect and the edition currently in effect, provide that a punitive discharge is authorized for any possession of marijuana.

There is no available evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board, for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant’s entire record of service was considered during the review of this case.  The Board was convinced that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.

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

__RJW__  ___RD __  ___MJT  _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084086	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030826	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19761004	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 10, UHC	
DISCHARGE REASON	A144.70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A144.7400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.