MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            29 May 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084297

	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. Richard P. Nelson		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That her husband was involved in a situation, went to jail and was dishonorably discharged.  At the time, the Army wasn’t sure of her involvement and she was discharged under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant further states that she has no record of any penalties.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army on 2 April 1979 for a period of 4 years.  She successfully completed Advanced Individual Training as a Signal Intelligence Analyst and served tours of duty in Texas and Germany.

On 11 December 1980, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for absenting herself, without authority, from her place of duty for a 24 hour period.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to E-2.

On 13 August 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to report to her place of duty at the appointed time and for reporting to her place of duty under the influence of intoxicating liquor.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to E-1 and a 14 day restriction.

On 7 March 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongful and unlawful child abuse.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

On 26 April 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  She indicated in her request that she understood she could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that she may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that she may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and that she may be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  She also acknowledged that she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable discharge.  Additionally, she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that she be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 24 May 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that she be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 14 June 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  She had served 4 years and 2 months of total active service.

There is no indication in the available records to show 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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 noted that court-martial charges were properly preferred against the applicant.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that she was discharged under other than honorable conditions solely because the Army was not sure of her involvement in her husband’s situation.  Contrary to this contention, the Board noted that court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for child abuse.  By requesting discharge, the applicant admitted guilt to the charges.

3.  The Board noted that, contrary to the applicant’s contention that she had no record of any disciplinary action, she received two Article 15s within a nine month period.

4.  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.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  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.

7.  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__  ___LE___  __LLS__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084297	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030529	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830614	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	1124	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.