MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           30 July 2002  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075260

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 the narrative reason for her discharge be changed and that her discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was depressed due to personal issues, that she had been in counseling for two years and still could not adjust.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 13 October 1997 at age 17.  She completed training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 91Q (Pharmacy Specialist). 

There is no evidence of any problems in her record until she received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for dereliction of duty and assault on 26 January 2000.

On 18 February 2000, she received NJP for absence from her appointed place of duty.  

She received a third NJP, on 22 June 2000, for absence from her appointed place of duty, signing a false official document; possession, with intent to deceive, of another's military identification card; use with intent to deceive, of another's military identification card, and use of a false military identification card.

On 23 October 2000, her unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation actions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.  She was advised of her rights and after consulting military counsel, waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving not less than a general discharge.  She did not submit a statement on her own behalf.

On 20 November 2000, the discharge authority accepted the recommendation for discharge, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that she be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12B, for a pattern of misconduct.

The applicant was discharged on 1 December 2000 with 3 years, 1 month and 16 days of creditable service.

On 28 June 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board, by unanimous decision, voted not to afford the applicant any relief.

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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  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.

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

_AAO  __  __KAH___  ___TL __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075260	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020730	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.