MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033100

	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	
	Ms. Maria C. Sanchez		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edward Williamson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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 under other than honorable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she went AWOL due to the fact she was sexually harassed by her senior NCO.  When she refused to date him, he retaliated by constantly belittling her and using inappropriate language and sexual suggestive motives which caused an unbearable working environment.  In support of her application, she submits the enclosed three character reference letters from acquaintances.

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

The applicant enlisted in Louisville, Kentucky on 27 July 1976 for a period of 3 years and assignment to Fort Knox, Kentucky.  She successfully completed her basic training and advance individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and was transferred to Fort Knox on16 November 1976 for duty as an administrative specialist.

She was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 1 June 1977 and was then advanced to pay grade E-4 on 15 November 1977.

On 9 May 1978, the applicant went AWOL until she returned to military control on 11 June 1978, where charges were preferred against her.

On 16 June 1978, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In her request she acknowledged that she was making the request of her own free will without coercion of any kind, that she had been informed and understood the implications that were associated with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, that she was guilty of charges against her or of a lesser included offense that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and that she had no desire to perform further military service.

The applicant also elected to submit a statement in her own behalf in which she asserted that when she received orders for Germany, she sought help to have her name deleted from those orders.  However, everyone she requested help from told her that her reasons for not going overseas were not valid.  She requested to be reassigned in St. Louis or somewhere in Illinois so she could maintain her home.  She never wanted to go AWOL but under the circumstances she felt she had no choice.  She wanted to complete her 3 years of service, but not overseas.

The appropriate authority approved her request on 29 June 1978 and directed that she be issued a discharge certificate under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 31 June 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She had served 1 year, 11 months and 1 day of total active service and had 34 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 16 December 1980.  She was granted a personal appearance before an ADRB Travel Panel in Chicago, Illinois on 29 October 1982.  She submitted a statement relating the reason for AWOL was the fact she and her husband would be separated.  The ADRB denied her request for an upgrade of her discharge on 22 November 1982.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 at any time after charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid the trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  She applied to the ADRB for a discharge upgrade and in the issues she submitted to that Board, she did not mention the issue of sexual harassment.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record and her undistinguished record of service is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.

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

___mvt__  ___kwl __  __elw ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033100	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1978/06/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.