MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            1 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2002073897

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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, that the reason for her discharge be changed in order to allow her to receive government benefits.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that in view of changes in Army policy due in part to sexual discrimination and harassment over the past few years, her case was one of quieting the whistleblower.  This resulted in the labeling of her performance as unproductive, although her performance as a student was above marginal.

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

On 27 April 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  She completed basic training at Fort McClellan, Alabama, and was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia, to attend advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 72E (Telecommunications Center Specialist).  

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes her acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions.  In addition, she received extensive counseling by members of her chain of command in regard to her duty performance and minor disciplinary infractions.  

On 16 September 1977, the applicant’s unit commander informed her that separation action was being initiated against her under the provisions of paragraph 5-39, Army Regulation 635-200, based on her inability to accept instructions and directions.  On 19 September 1977, after being advised of the reasons for her separation and the rights available to her, she elected to consult counsel and to make a statement in her own behalf.  

In a 3rd endorsement he prepared to recommend the applicant be discharged, her battalion commander indicated that the applicant was adamant about staying in the Army, and had gone to great lengths to solicit statements in her behalf from many people, mainly her peers.  He further commented that the fact the applicant was a friendly person and got along well with her peers was not in question.  However, she had established a pattern that made her value to the Army highly questionable.  He also stated that she had received correctional training and two Article 15’s, and that her attitude toward authority had caused her to repeatedly question the qualifications of her superiors.  He also indicated that the applicant’s unit commander had indicated that he would not want the applicant as a member of a TO&E unit were he the commander.  

The battalion commander also confirmed that he had met with the applicant’s parents, who had traveled from Pennsylvania in order to determine why the applicant was being recommended for discharge.  He indicated that he spent several hours with her parents trying to convince them that the applicant had not met the standards expected of a soldier.  Further, that it was the professional opinion of her noncommissioned officers and her unit commander that further duty in the Army would be detrimental to both her, and to those who would have to depend on her in a time of crisis.  He concluded that as much as he would like to comply with the request of the applicant and her parents that her retention in the Army be recommended, he could not in good conscience do so.  Therefore, he recommended that she be discharged as recommended. 

On 14 October 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-39, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that she receive an honorable discharge.  On 14 October 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of her discharge, she had completed a total of just 5 months and 18 days of active military service.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-39, in effect at the time, provided the policy and procedure for the separation of enlisted personnel under the trainee discharge program.  It provided for the separation of enlisted personnel prior to the award of an MOS with less than 180 total days of creditable military service for one of the following reasons: failure to adapt; inability to meet training standards; or character and behavior characteristics that were not compatible with continued service.  

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 Board notes the applicant’s request that the reason for her discharge be changed based on current standards in order to allow her to obtain government benefits.  However, it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support this requested relief.  

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was honorably separated under the provisions of the trainee discharge program.  Her separation was based on her inability to accept instructions/directions, which resulted in her failing to meet training standards.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, it finds that the reason for her discharge was proper and equitable, and it accurately reflects the basis for her separation.  Thus, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case. 
3.  The applicant is advised that her entitlement to government benefits is determined by whatever agency administers the specific benefit in question, and not necessarily by the Army.  Therefore, any questions or claim of entitlement to a specific benefit should be addressed to the responsible agency.  

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

__SAC__  __MHM__  __RKS__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073897	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1977/10/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	TDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.