MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           4 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084376

	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. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she had a distinguished military career beginning in college.  She earned a 2-year scholarship with her exceptional performance at the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) basic camp.  She was the only cadet from her ROTC program that received a Regular Army commission in the Medical Service Corps.  While on active duty, her officer evaluation reports (OERs) reflected that she was consistently rated above her peers.  She received the top block rating on 6 of her 9 OERs.  

It was clear from the first day of reporting to her last unit that there would be a personality conflict with her commander.  The battalion commander had pre-selected a male officer as the company commander even though the brigade commander and the brigade command sergeant major insisted that she get the command.  The work environment was very stressful and emotionally exhausting.  The working environment became so unbearable that she felt pressured by her battalion commander to resign her commission to alleviate the stress.  She was not informed that the battalion commander was pursuing a general discharge.  Had she known that she would not receive an honorable discharge, she would not have resigned her commission.  To her frustration, she learned after her discharge that the allegations made against her came back unfounded.  She requests the Board not allow one man’s negative opinion of her (a female officer) to taint her record forever.

As supporting evidence, the applicant provides a letter of support dated 29 March 2002, her OERs and awards, and three post-service (one civilian and two civil-service) evaluation reports with her application.

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

She was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Medical Service Corps and entered active duty on 9 June 1993.  She was promoted to captain on 1 June 1997.

The applicant’s OERs all contain highly commendable comments but show that her senior raters (SR) rated her as a center-of-mass or dual center-of-mass officer for the most part.  

OER Ending Period		SR Block Rating (* indicates applicant’s rating)

26 June 1995		23*/18/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
1 October 1995		3*/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
23 June 1996		11*/18/4/0/0/0/0/0/0
1 December 1996		12*/18/4/0/0/0/0/0/0
27 June 1997		26*/34/9/2/0/0/0/0/0
30 June 1997		2*/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
3 January 1998		center-of-mass

On 2 February 1999, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging her with making a false official statement in substance as follows:     that she had not traveled to the Vilseck Training Center during the period          28 November through 13 December 1998, that she had only been called on the telephone once by Staff Sergeant L___ while Staff Sergeant L__ was on temporary duty, and that she had not and was not involved with Staff Sergeant L___ in a relationship that is prohibited under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Fraternization), which statements she did not then believe to be true and charging her with fraternization (being involved in a personal relationship that involved numerous telephone conversations of a personal nature, sharing a motel room, and sexual activity.

On 2 February 1999, the applicant requested resignation for the good of the service in lieu of general court-martial.  She stated she did not desire to appear before a court-martial or board of officers.  She stated that she had not been subject to coercion with respect to the resignation and that she was advised of and fully understood the implications of her action.  She was fully advised and counseled by a member of the Trial Defense Service and Judge Advocate General’s Corps.  She was afforded an opportunity to present matters in explanation, mitigation, or defense of her case and elected to remain silent.  She apologized to her unit and the Army for the embarrassment and attention that the current investigation had caused.  She requested that her discharge be characterized as Honorable in light of her record of service.  She understood that her resignation could be considered as being under other than honorable conditions.  

On an unknown date, the battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request and recommended her service be characterized as general under honorable conditions.

On 11 February 1999, the Commanding General, V Corps, recommended approval of the applicant’s resignation from the Army in lieu of court-martial with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.  The Commanding General noted that the applicant was pending trial by court-martial for conduct unbecoming an officer for false official statements and for fraternization with an enlisted soldier under her command.

The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicant’s resignation for the good of the service be accepted.  On 26 March 1999, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) accepted the recommendation, approved the applicant’s request, and directed she be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge.

On 29 April 1999, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade O-3, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She had completed 5 years, 10 months, and 21 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 3-13, provides that an officer may submit a resignation for the good of the service (RFGOS) in lieu of general court-martial when court-martial charges have been preferred against the officer with a view toward trial by general court-martial or when the officer is under a suspended sentence of dismissal.  The commander will ensure that RFGOSs are voluntary, that officers are provided the opportunity to consult with legally qualified counsel who is a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps or a civilian counsel retained by the officer at his or her own expense, and allowed a reasonable period of time to consider requesting a RFGOS.  An officer separated under this paragraph normally receives a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  

Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 1-21, states that the character of service will be predicated on the officer’s behavior and performance while a member of the Army.  Characterization will normally be based on a pattern of behavior and duty performance rather than an isolated incident.  However, there are circumstances in which conduct reflected by a single incident could provide the basis of characterization of service.  An honorable characterization of service will normally be given when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for an officer.  A general under honorable conditions characterization of service will normally be given when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable characterization of discharge.

On 22 January 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board disapproved the applicant’s request to upgrade her 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 or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant’s voluntary request for resignation under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, chapter 3, 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 from her battalion commander or any other individual.

3.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s prior good service and her good post-service conduct; however, those factors do not warrant upgrading her discharge to fully honorable.  Her characterization of service was based upon certain acts of misconduct that the applicant, as a commissioned officer, should have had better judgment than to allow to occur.

4.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that she learned after her discharge the allegations made against her came back unfounded; however, she has provided no evidence to show that the court-martial charges were unfounded.

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

__MHM__  __CLG  _  __RJW  __  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084376	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1999/04/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 600-8-24, ch 3	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.