MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 August 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085986

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson 		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell 		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 general.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant did not provide an explanation.  In support of her application, she submits a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); discharge orders from the New Jersey Army National Guard (NJARNG), dated 5 October 2001; an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the NJARNG; and her enlistment contract with the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, dated 6 July 2001.  

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

The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 13 August 1980 under the delayed entry program.  She entered active duty on 2 July 1981, trained as a medical specialist and extended her three-year enlistment on 7 April 1983 for an additional 23 months.  The applicant was promoted to sergeant effective 
1 February 1985 and was honorably discharged on 4 December 1985 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  She reenlisted on 5 December 1985 for a period of 6 years.    

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not contained in the available records.  However, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) proceedings indicate that charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 May 1987 to 3 September 1987.  

On 9 September 1987, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  She waived a separation physical examination and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.

On 21 September 1987, the intermediate commander recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that she be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 23 September 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that she be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 7 October 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  She had served 5 years, 11 months and 19 days of total active service with 110 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The ADRB denied the applicant's requests to upgrade her discharge on 
12 October 1988 and on 27 October 1997.
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 honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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.  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 Board noted the applicant's honorable service in the NJARNG following her discharge from the Army and her current status in the Pennsylvania Air National Guard.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.  

3.  The Board noted that the applicant had served almost six years of military service at the time of her discharge.  However, the Board also noted that the applicant was a sergeant and knew, or should have known, that there were other options available to her than to go AWOL. 

4.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of 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 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

FNE____  MVT_____  JTM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085986	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030819	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19871007	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.