MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            22 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034157

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		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:  Reconsideration of her earlier appeal to correct her records by authorizing separation pay. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect,  that since she was not allowed to extend or reenlist, her 12 February 1998 separation due to the expiration of her term of service (ETS) should be considered to have been involuntary.  She submits copies of several pieces of correspondence to substantiate her case.
 
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 30 September 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that require Board consideration.

A dismissal order shows the company commander, a colonel, dismissed the court-martial charges, without prejudice on 4 December 1997.

In a 15 January 1998 letter to a member of congress the applicant offered essentially the same arguments that she has presented to this Board.

In a 17 February 1998 letter to the applicant, the congressman indicated that he was enclosing a copy of the Army’s response although, the applicant did not submit that enclosure with this appeal.  The congressman noted that the “Staff Judge Advocate had determined that you could not be involuntarily extended past your expiration term of service date for administrative discharge processing.”
 
The applicant responded to the congressman in a 25 February 1998 letter.  She again complained about the way she had been treated in not being authorized separation pay.  She claimed that she had been denied an extension of service so that she could have proven her innocence before a board of officers.  

The applicant wrote to a sergeant major at the office of the Director of Personnel Management.  In this document, dated 29 January 1998, she complained that she was being mistreated because the command has determined to simply discharge her at the expiration of her term of service.

In an undated response to the 22 January 1998 letter of reprimand (LOR) the applicant claimed that the urinalysis screening had been improperly conducted.  She reported that she had elected trial by court-martial but the charges had been dropped.  Then she was to have been eliminated, but that never happened.  She felt the LOR was unfair.  She had no chance to prove her innocence.  She submitted a request to extend but that it had not even been returned to her.  She felt that she was being presumed guilty rather than presumed innocent.

A 15 April 1998 letter to the congressman from the Chief of Staff, Infantry Training Center, Fort Benning, Georgia explained that the applicant was not entitled to separation pay because she had been barred from reenlistment and that she would not have been eligible if she had been separated due to misconduct under chapter 14, of Army Regulation 635-200.

In a hand written note on her post clearance checkout sheet, she questioned whether only 2 days was normal procedure.

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.  Although the documents are technically new evidence in that they were not previously available to the Board.  However, they do not show that the applicant actually submitted a request to extend her enlistment so that she could have appeared before an elimination board.  Her command was not authorized to have involuntarily extended her enlistment.  None of the documents does anything to demonstrate an error or an injustice in denying her separation pay.
 
2.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

3.  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

__EW___  __MVT__  __KWL __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034157	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000822	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.08	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.