MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            16 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030604

	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.

	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That her commander informed her that if she requested
an upgrade it would be no problem.  She also states that she was very embarrassed at the fact that her commander did not know she was AWOL.

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

She enlisted on 11 October 1995 as a water treatment specialist.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 18 November 1996 for being AWOL from 30 April 1996 to 4 November 1996 (188 days).

On 18 November 1996, she consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so she admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that she might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  She also elected to submit a statement in her own behalf in which she stated that she believed that the military was an excellent system; however, she felt that it she personally does not work well in a military environment.

On 20 November 1996, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that she be furnished an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 26 November 1996.
She had a total of 7 months and 4 days of creditable service and had a total of 188 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge on 1 July 1999.  The ADRB determined that her discharge was proper and equitable and denied her request on 6 August 1999.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 the charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  

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 notes the applicant’s contentions that her commander informed her that if she requested an upgrade it would be no problem and that she was very embarrassed at the fact that her commander did not know she was AWOL.
However, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support her contentions.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.

3.  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.  

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

5.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

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:

_JLP____  OWT____  CJP____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030604	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000316	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19961126	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.