MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           19 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031343

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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:  In effect, reinstatement in the 353d Civil Affairs Command as a troop program unit (TPU) member, and the restoration of all rights, privileges, and property.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was unjustly and unfairly released from active duty while undergoing premobilization at Fort Dix, New Jersey in December 1997 for allegations of misconduct; and involuntarily transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  The applicant submits 26 tabbed documents with her application.  Pertinent information is summarized:

In her application to this Board, the applicant narrates her difficulties in resolving her case to her satisfaction with various officials, the acting commander and the Judge Advocate of the 353d, the Fort Bragg Inspector General, the Special Operations Command Inspector General, the DA Inspector General, and members of the 4th Judge Advocate’s office.  She provided the Commander of the Army Reserve Personnel Center in St. Louis with similar information.

In a 11 December 1997 memorandum to the commander of the Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command at Fort Bragg, she stated that she had been falsely accused of leaving Fort Dix without authorization, missing all but one class, and deemed non-deployable because she failed to qualify with her weapon and because her dental status could not be verified.  She outlined her difficulties in obtaining dental treatment, in qualifying with her weapon, and attending classes.  She stated that she was at the range or at the dentist when most of the classes were given, and that she understood that she had permission to leave Fort Dix in order to receive treatment from her personal dentist, and was not AWOL (Tab 2).

On 9 March 1997 the Special Operations Command IG notified her that her allegation that two officers who recommended the revocation of her orders were based on false information, was not substantiated, and would take no further action concerning the allegation (Tab 4)

On 12 March 1998 she was informed that she had accrued 6 unexcused absences within a 1 year period (Tab 5).  She requested from her commanding officer that the absences for 7-8 March 1998 be excused because of family needs (Tab 6).  On 6 May 1998 she was informed that she had accrued            10 unexcused absences within a 1 year period, and that she could be transferred to the IRR as an unsatisfactory participant (Tab 9).

On 13 May 1998 she appealed to the DA IG, complaining that the previous IG investigations into her allegations were mishandled.  She outlined the allegations, and her defense to each one (Tab 10).  She was informed by the DA IG that her correspondence had been referred to the IG of the Special Operations Command (Tab 11).  She again asked for help from the DA IG on 8 June 1998, stating that the decision to relieve her from active duty was unjust and unfair (Tab 13)

She was transferred to the IRR effective 30 June 1998 (Tab 16).  On 6 July 1998 she appealed to the acting commander of the 353d regarding her transfer to the IRR (Tab 14).

On 10 August 1998 the DA IG responded to her request for an investigation into the actions of Army officials responsible for the revocation of her orders, and informed her that the Special Operations Command IG had conducted a thorough and impartial inquiry, and that responses previously provided her were accurate, factual, and responsive to her concerns; and that since she had provided no new information, her case had been closed and no further action would be taken.  She was informed to contact the Army Reserve Personnel Command concerning her transfer to the IRR (Tab 15).

On 21 October 1998 she requested assistance from a brigadier general, the commander of the 353d, requesting reinstatement in the 353d, stating that she never volunteered to be transferred to the IRR (Tab 17).  

On 1 June 1999 an officer of the 4th Judge Advocate General’s Detachment informed her that there were no issues in which his office could successfully represent her (Tab 18). 

Documents at Tabs 19 through 25 show orders to annual training in order to prepare for mobilization, and amendment of orders.  Order at Tab 26 shows that she was assigned to USAREUR (United States Army, Europe) at Zagreb, Croatia in support of Operation Joint Guard not to exceed 242 days.  That order was revoked on 5 December 1997 (Tab 7).  Also at Tab 7 is a copy of a notice to her that she was indebted to the government in the amount of $8362.98.      

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve for six years on 1 February 1982, and reenlisted for six years on 3 November 1985.  She was appointed a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve on 6 June 1986.  In December 1990 she was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm.  She was released from active duty in June 1991.  

The only other germane evidence is that of the official documents, e.g., orders, letters of unexcused absences, IG memorandums, etc.,  provided by the applicant with her request.

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 applicant has made various allegations against personnel of her command, and has indicated that the IG investigations into her complaints were mishandled.  She averred that she has been treated unjustly and unfairly, that her active duty orders should not have been revoked, and that she should not have been transferred to the IRR.  She stated that these actions against her were based on false premises.  She herself has stated that she appealed for help from inspectors general of three agencies, to include the DA IG; from Judge Advocate General personnel; and from her command; to no avail.

2.  Notwithstanding her allegations, she had provided no proof of any wrongdoing.  There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to support her allegations, or that the revocation of her assignment order to USAREUR, or that her transfer to the IRR, was unfair or unjust.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

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

___eja___  ___vbc__  ___jph___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031343	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000419	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	135.01	
2.	135.03	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.