PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:             22 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999032002

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that she be credited with her honorable discharges and that the statement “member has not completed first full term of service” be removed from block 18 of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she had reenlisted on two separate occasions and should receive credit for her earlier honorable discharges.  In addition, she claims that the statement in block 18, which states that she did not complete her first full term of service, is erroneous.  She also states that she had given over 7 years of honorable service and thinks her record should reflect this as well as her dishonorable service.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she initially entered the Regular Army on 23 October 1986 for 3 years.  She successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Upon completion of AIT the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 75E (Personnel Actions Specialist) and assigned overseas to Germany for her first permanent duty station. 

5.  The applicant was promoted to private/E-2 on 1 September 1987, private first class/E-3 on 1 September 1987, and specialist/E-4 on 1 February 1988 and on 25 May 1988, she was awarded an Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement.  

6.  On 28 July 1988, the applicant extended her initial 3 year enlistment for a period of 7 months in order to qualify for a return assignment from Germany to the United States.  On 17 December 1988, she earned an Army Commendation Medal for her meritorious service in Germany, with the 56th Artillery Command, which covered the period 23 March 1987 to 19 December 1988. 

7.  On 20 October 1989, the applicant reenlisted for 2 years, while assigned at Fort McNair, Washington D.C.  On 25 September 1991, she was awarded a second Army Commendation Medal, this time for her meritorious service while assigned as a Senior Personnel Actions Clerk at Fort McNair.  She was then reassigned overseas to Korea, where she served until September 1992.  

8.  The applicant was reassigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, where she arrived in November 1992.  On 19 February 1993, the applicant received a Memorandum of Reprimand, from her unit commander, for being disrespectful toward a noncommissioned officer.  On 24 August 1993, she was reduced to the rank of private/E-1, and while the specific authority and vehicle used for this reduction is not on file, the date does coincide closely with the dates of the offenses for which she ultimately faced general court-martial charges.

9.  On 1 December 1993, the applicant was tried and convicted by general 
court-martial for violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully failing to register a weapon in her possession on post, and for five specifications of wrongfully possessing, distributing, and using cocaine.  The resultant sentence included a forfeiture of all pay and allowances; confinement at hard labor for 
5 years; and to be discharged from the service with a Dishonorable Discharge (DD).  On 7 April 1994, this court-martial action was promulgated and the sentence approved in General Court-Martial Order (GCMO) Number 22, issued by Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis, Washington.  

10.  On 2 August 1995, the court-martial action was finally affirmed in GCMO Number 52, issued by Headquarters I Corps and Fort Lewis, Washington and the sentence pertaining to DD was ordered executed.  Accordingly, on 5 September 1995, the applicant was discharged after completing 7 years, 1 month, and 
20 days of active military service, and having had accrued 619 days of time lost due to confinement.  

11.  Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 1552, as amended, does not permit any redress by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.  This Board is only empowered to change the discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate.  Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 

12.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents which are prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  Paragraph 1-4 of this regulation indicates, pertinent part, that a DD Form 214 will not be prepared on enlisted members discharged for immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that the DD Form 214 issued her at discharge contained the following erroneous statement in block 18:  “member has not completed first full term of service”.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  At the time of her discharge the applicant had completed over 7 years of service and had reenlisted on two separate occasions, which clearly establishes that she completed her first full term of service.  Therefore, the Board found the statement outlined above to be inaccurate, and determined that this error should be corrected at this time.  

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that she received two honorable discharges and should be credited with this service.  The Board concluded that the applicant’s record does adequately document all her service to include the honorable periods.  The DD Form 214 issued the applicant at discharge appropriately lists her periods of prior honorable service in block 18 as “reenlistments this period”.  By regulation, a DD Form 214 is not prepared on enlisted members who are discharged for immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army.  Therefore, the Board found no basis for relief on this issue.  

3.  The Board concluded that relief beyond that granted in paragraph 1 is not warranted.  Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 1552, as amended does not permit any redress by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.  This Board is only empowered to change the discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate.  Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.  After a thorough review of the available information and any issues submitted, the Board found no cause for clemency in this case.  

4.  Trial by court-martial was warranted based on the gravity of the offense with which the applicant was charged.  Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned did complete her first full term of service, and deleting the statement “member has not completed first full term of service” from block 18 of the DD Form 214 issued her on 5 September 1995. 

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___ja___  ___tsk___  ___ao___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____James M. Alward_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032002	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/02/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	DD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1995/09/05	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C3	
DISCHARGE REASON	Court-Martial Sentence	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.