MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            22 March 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030851

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time of her discharge she had been in a bad car accident and that she only remembers someone asking her if she wanted to get out of the Army.  She further states she responded to the question indicating that she wanted to get out of the Army, however she doesn’t understand what the actual reasons were.

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

On 6 May 1976, she enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  She successfully completed her training as a multi-channel communications equipment operator.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 26 August 1976 for failure to go to her appointed place of duty and for failure to obey a lawful order.  Her punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 6 September 1976, she was promoted to the pay grade of E-2.

On 8 April 1977, NJP was imposed against her for being absent from her unit and for being derelict in the performance of her duties.  Her punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

She was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 June 1977.

The applicant had NJP imposed against her again on 8 August 1977 for disobeying a lawful order on three separate occasions from three NCOs, for disobeying a lawful order from her superior NCO and for being derelict in the performance of her duties.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

On 17 August 1977, NJP was imposed against her for failure to go to her appointed place of duty on two separate occasions.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

On 17 October 1977, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability was being initiated.  She acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, she waived her rights and she opted not to submit a statement in her own behalf.
On 14 November 1977, the recommendation for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority.  Accordingly, on 25 November 1977, she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability.  She had completed 1 year, 6 months and 20 days of total active service and she was issued a General Discharge Certificate.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsuitability, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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 actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, there is no evidence of record that shows that she was unaware of the type of discharge she would receive.  The record clearly shows that she had NJP imposed against her numerous times as a result of her being unsuitable for continued service.  The record further shows that she was notified that she was being recommended for discharge for unsuitability and she acknowledged receipt of the notification.  The general discharge that she received appropriately reflects her character of service as her service was not totally honorable.

4.  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.

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

___ja___  __tsk____  __ao____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030851	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1977/11/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	547	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  713	144.7110/A71.10	
2.  718	144.7500/A75.50	
3.  723	144.7510/A75.10	
4.		
5.		
6.