MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032628

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was unjustly separated; that she did not write checks on a closed account and did not receive two previous nonjudicial punishments.  She was forced out of the military by her commander who was racist and used false statements to separate her.  She also states that her discharge board was held at the Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC), but that it should have been held at the 4th Infantry Division Headquarters.  She claims to have more years of service than what is shown on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  In support of her application, she provides a statement and a copy of her DD Form 214.

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

With 3 years prior service, she enlisted under the Delayed Entry Program on 18 October 1978 and entered active duty on 29 December 1978.  Her assignment history includes an overseas tour in Germany.  She was promoted to staff sergeant (E-6) on 6 July 1983.  In April 1984, she was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.

During the period 27 June 1989 to 4 August 1989, the applicant received three formal counseling statements for writing bad checks.  On 17 July 1987, she was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to report to her appointed place of duty.  On 10 August 1987, she was administered a second NJP for writing four bad checks.

The applicant was notified on 20 January 1989 that the 1988 Sergeant First Class promotion selection board had determined that she should be barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) based on four deficient NCO evaluation reports and two records of NJP.  The applicant appealed.

In a memorandum dated 19 September 1989, the Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board (STAB) denied the applicant’s appeal of her QMP action.  The STAB directed that separation proceedings be initiated not later than 60 days following the date of notification of disapproval of her appeal.

On 27 September 1989, the applicant was administered NJP for writing ten bad checks in the total amount of $1077.19.  Her punishment included reduction in rank to sergeant (E-5).

On 17 October 1989, the applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant be discharged for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The applicant appeared before a board of officers convened at the MEDDAC on 1 December 1989.  The board recommended separation.  The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 9 January 1990 at Fort Carson, Colorado.  She had 14 years and 11 days of creditable active service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Essentially, it states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

On 22 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of her discharge.

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 record does not support the applicant’s contention, nor has she submitted any evidence to prove that she was the victim of racial prejudice or that she was unjustly separated from the Army.  She was a noncommissioned officer with a record of serious, repeated misconduct; this was the sole reason for her separation.

2.  The applicant’s claim to have more service than is shown on her DD Form 214 is unfounded.  The record shows that she enlisted on 29 December 1978 and was separated on 9 January 1990, for a total of 11 years and 11 days of active service.  It also shows that she served a previous 3-year tour from 27 January 1975 to 26 January 1978.  The computations of her service on the DD Form 214, both active and inactive, are correct as shown.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation, to include her hearing before a board of officers at the MEDDAC, was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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 this 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

__mdm__  __wtm__  __clg____  DENY APPLICATION

    Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032628	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000622	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19900109	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.03	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.