PART II - APPLICATION DATA

(Note: Part I deleted under the Privacy Act on Reading Room copy)

1.  Character of Discharge:  UOHC

2.  Date of discharge (or REFRAD):  970716

3.  Authority for separation:

	a.  Regulation:  Chapter 10, AR 635-200

	b.  Reason:  In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial

4.  Prior review(s):  NONE

PART III - SERVICE HISTORY

SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review

1.	Service data:                              2.  Awards and decorations:
			                          NDSM                       
a.  Period entered for:  3 Years  (20 mos ext) ASR
b.  Entry date:  930114            (940514)    OSR
c.  Age:  22 Years   DOB:  701124                                          
d.  Educational level:  14 Years                                                
e.  Aptitude area score:
	    GT:  96                                3.  Highest grade achieved:
    f.  Length of Service:                         E4
        4 Years  6 Months  3 Days                                  
                                                           
                                               4.  Performance evaluations:  
                                                   NONE

PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review - Continued

5.  Periods of unauthorized absence:  NONE
                                                                    
    Status       Inclusive dates                       
	AWOL                                                               

	Mil conf                                                           

	Civil conf                                                         

	Other                                                              

6.  Nonjudicial punishment: 

	Date 	Offense(s)
	970113    Stealing various articles from Vogelweh Base Exchange, valued at $530.70, the property of AAFES (960831)

7.  Court-Martial data:  NONE

	a.  SCM:  
		Date   Offense(s)

	b.  SPCM:  
		Date   Offense(s)

	c.  GCM:	 
		Date   Offense(s)

8.	Remarks:  NONE

SECTION B - Prior Service Data
NONE

Other discharge(s):

	Service	From	To	Type Discharge

PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW

SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT
l.  Facts and Circumstances:

	a.  The evidence of record shows that two court martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 12 June 1997:  Charge I was for a violation of Article 90 of the UCMJ for willfully disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer (970429); and Charge II was for a violation of Article 121 of the UCMJ for stealing a CD valued at $11.95 (970610).  The record does not contain the actual request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial made by the applicant; however, it does include a recommendation from the Staff Judge Advocate, dated 1 July 1997, that the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be approved and the she be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  On 1 July 1997, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed a UOHC discharge and that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 

	b.  The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), authenticated by the applicant, which documents the following:  Effective date of Discharge-16 July 1997; Characterization of Service-UOHC; Authority for Separation-Chapter l0, AR 635-200; and Narrative Reason for Separation-In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.  At the time of discharge, the applicant had completed 4 years, 6 months, and 3 days of active military service.

	c.  The applicant’s record reflects that she completed just over 4 and ½ years of service; attained the rank of specialist/E-4; and that she completed an overseas tour in Germany.  There are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition contained in the record.  However, there is a recorded history of disciplinary infractions.  On 13 January 1997 the applicant accepted an Article 15 for stealing various items of property of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) valued at $530.70; her punishment for this offense included a reduction in rank to private first class/E-3.  On 12 June 1997 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for another incident of theft from AAFES and for disobeying the lawful command of a superior commissioned officer.  When faced with these charges the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial in order to avoid prosecution and the punitive discharge which may have resulted.

2.  Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action:  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter l0 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 a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The requests may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOHC is normally considered appropriate.

SECTION B-APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

1.  Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity submitted by applicant or counsel.

    As stated on applicant’s DD Form 293.

2.  Exhibit(s) submitted:
	A-1:  DD Form 293, dated 981130.
	A-2:  Counsel Issues:  NONE
	B-l:  Other Documents: NONE

PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED)

SECTION C - Medical and/or Legal Advisory Opinion

Referred to ( ) Medical Advisor      ( ) Legal Advisor

      a.  Medical prehearing comments (if applicable):

      b.  Legal prehearing comments (if applicable):

PART V - SUMMARY OF HEARING

SECTION A-Attendees and exhibits

1.  Review/hearing information:

	a. Type requested:
	   ( X ) Records review             (   ) Hearing

	b. Type Held:
	   ( X )Records review              (   ) Hearing
	                                    (   ) Tender Offer

	c. Review/hearing location and date:  Washington D.C. on 3 February 1999.

	d. Appearance by:
	   Applicant                 (   ) Yes   ( X ) No
	   Counsel                   (   ) Yes   ( X ) No

	e.  Applicant testified:     (   ) Yes   ( X ) No
	
	f.  Counsel presentation:    (   ) Yes   ( X ) No
	
	g.  Witness(es) testified:   (   ) Yes   ( X ) No
	                                                
2.  Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing:  

PART VI - ISSUES AND FINDINGS

1.  a.  Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity:

	    ( X )	Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive.
	    (   )	Revised issue(s) furnished in writing by applicant as follows:
	    ( X )	Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as follows:

        (2)  Board Issue:  The characterization of service was too harsh.

	b.  Request:  ( X ) Recharacterization     (   ) Change of Reason

2.  Finding(s), conclusion(s), and reason(s) for the Board's decision(s) on issues of propriety and/or equity:

	a.  Propriety:	The applicant has not submitted an issue of propriety and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an issue of propriety to change the discharge.

	b.  Equity:	The parenthetical number(s) below correspond(s) to the issue number(s) on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI, Paragraph 1, above.

        (2)  The issue is accepted.  There was a full consideration of all service including the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable because the quality of the applicant's service did not warrant the granting of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant's failure to perform in accordance with Army standards was mitigated by service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 

        (1)  The issue is rejected.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that, in effect, she was sorry for her mistakes and her post service conduct has been good.  However, the Board concluded that these factors did warrant relief beyond that granted in response to issue (2) above because the applicant’s misconduct diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

3.  Response(s) to item(s) not addressed as decisional issue(s):  NONE

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION A - Conclusions/Decisions/Vote

1.	Board conclusion(s):

	The discharge was:

	( X )	Proper.
	(   )	Improper as to characterization.  Change characterization to                                     .
	(   )	Improper as to reason.  Change reason to                         under                      .

	(   )	Equitable.
	( X )	Inequitable as to characterization.  Change characterization to General, Under Honorable Conditions.
	(   )	Inequitable as to reason.  Change reason to                       
		under                                 .
	(   )	Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should be changed to                      under                         .

2.  Voting record:      Change   No Change
	            Reason       0         5  
    Characterization       4         1   

	  The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded in Part IX of this document and can be obtained by writing to the address below.  The request must contain the CASE NO. located in the upper right corner of this document.

                  Department of the Army Review Boards Agency
                  ATTN:  Promulgation Team
                  1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, 2nd Floor
                  Arlington, VA  22202-4508

3.  Minority views:  NONE  

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION B - Verification and Authentication

Case report reviewed and verified	

MR. ADRIANCE                           
Case Reviewing Official	

PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION
SECTION A - DIRECTIVE

TO: ARBA Support Division-St Louis      Date:  5 February 1999

     The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I directs that the ARBA Support Division-St Louis issue a new DD Form 2l4 to the applicant which reflects the following directed change(s):

           ( X )	Characterization of discharge be changed to General, Under Honorable Conditions.

SECTION B - CERTIFICATION

Approval Authority:

THOMAS J. ALLEN
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
   Review Board

Official:

SUZANNE WALKER    
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder

EXHIBITS:
A - Application for review of discharge              	C - Other 
B - Material submitted by applicant

INDEX RECORD:

AR Number:  1999015385                    INDEX NUMBERS:  A9218
Date of Review:  990203                                   A9222
Character of Service:  UD                                 A0100
Date of Discharge:  970716                                
Authority:  AR 635-200 C10                                
Reason:  A7000                                            
Results of Board Action/                                  
Vote/Affirmation:  GD 4-1 A                               

PART IX - VOTING RECORD

    Name                                   Reason         Characterization
                                           CHANGE   NC    HON   UHC   NC   UNCHAR
    1. 	Mbr          X                  X       

    2. 	Mbr          X            X             

    3. 	Mbr          X            X             

    4. 	Mbr          X            X             

    5. 	PO           X            X