MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     .

	BOARD DATE:           4 February 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074845

	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. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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:  In effect, that she has changed her life spiritually and is happy now.  She cites the evidence presented to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to substantiate her case.

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

She enlisted and entered active duty on 17 November 1994; completed training as a unit supply specialist, military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y10; and progressed to the rank of specialist (E-4).

On 13 September 1999 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code Military Justice for stealing a combination TV/VCR worth $288.79 from the Joint Lodging Office.  The regimental commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of ½ pay per month for two months and extra duty for 60 days.  The applicant appealed.  A legal officer, a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, noted that 45 days was the maximum authorized extra duty and the brigade commander suspended the forfeiture of pay until 12 March 2000 or until the applicant's ETS (the expiration of her term of service).  On 19 October 1999 the suspended punishment was vacated due to the applicant's absence from her appointed place of duty.

At a 20 October 1999 mental status evaluation the applicant displayed normal behavior.  She was fully alert and oriented. Her mood was unremarkable, thinking process clear, thought content normal and her memory good.  In the opinion of the examiner she was mentally responsible, met retention requirements and evidenced no psychiatric disorder that would interfere with her ability to understand and participate in any administrative of judicial process.  She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.

The company commander initiated action to separate the applicant with a general discharge for misconduct, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 because of the NJP incident and "numerous derogatory counseling statements…."

The applicant was advised of the proposed elimination, she consulted with counsel and waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf.  She also acknowledged that she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian 

life and that she could apply to the ADRB and this Board but that right of application did not imply that the discharge would be upgraded.  She also acknowledged that she would be prohibited from applying for reenlistment for two years.

The intermediate commanders recommended separation action and the separation authority approved the recommendation.  On 10 November 1999 the applicant was separated with a general discharge for misconduct.  She had 4 years, 11 months and 24 days of creditable service.  Her authorized awards included the Army Achievement Medal (2nd award), the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, the Army Service Medal, the Overseas Service Medal and the Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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, conviction 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.

At a 19 March 2002 ADRB hearing personal appearance, with counsel, the applicant contended that her good service outweighed the one negative incident, that the discharge was too severe and that a mental health problem contributed to the misconduct.  She presented a certificate from the local police department indicating that she had no local criminal warrants.  She also submitted a letter of reference from a minister who stated that the applicant was a faithful, regular attendee and a member of the choir.  He indicated that he was aware of the incident that led to the applicant's discharge and believed that she had turned her life around as the result of that discharge.  The ADRB denied the applicant's request to upgrade her discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The evidence of the applicant's post-service behavior and adjustment, as evidenced by the police report and the letter from her minister, have been noted but these factors are not so exceptionally meritorious as to warrant the requested relief.  

3.  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.

4.  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

_MHM___  __CLG__  __RJW __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074845	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030204	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	219991110	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 ch 14 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A64.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A92.21	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.