MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077082

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 her undesirable discharge (UD) be changed to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that to the best of her knowledge, at the time of her discharge, she was never advised that she could contest the character of her discharge.  She claims that she was unaware that she could have remained in the service and make amends for her errors and make-up her absent without leave (AWOL) time.  She claims that had she been aware of these options, she would have remained on active duty and served honorably.  She states that she has led a decent and productive life subsequent to her discharge.  In support of her application, she submits two character reference letters.

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

On 26 February 1971, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years.  The highest rank she attained during her active duty tenure was private/E-2 (PV2), and her record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

The applicant’s record shows that she completed basic training and attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71H (Personnel Management Specialist).  While attending AIT, she accepted non-judicical punishment (NJP) on 22 July 1971, for failure to report to her appointed place of duty.  In addition, she was AWOL from 2 through 20 August 1971.  

On 24 August 1971, the applicant’s unit commander notified her that a separation action was being initiated to eliminate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  The commander stated that the basis for the separation action was the applicant’s refusal to attend any service school. The unit commander further stated that the applicant exhibited an extreme lack of interest and could not expend effort constructively.  Finally, the unit commander indicated that the applicant had absolutely no motivation for service in the Army.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification and consulted legal counsel.  Legal counsel advised her of the basis for the contemplated separation, the effects of an UD, and of the rights available to her.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant completed her election of rights by waiving consideration of her case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and the right to consulting counsel.  In addition, she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

On 31 August 1971, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority.  On 10 September 1971, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an UD.  At the time of her discharge she had completed a total of 5 months and 26 days of creditable active military service, and she had accrued 19 days of time lost due to AWOL.  

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to separation unfitness.  An UD was 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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions and while it wishes to congratulate her on her excellent post service conduct and good citizenship, it finds these factors alone are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.  In the opinion of the Board, based on the applicant’s misconduct and poor duty performance, the discharge she received was appropriate and accurately reflects her overall record of service. 

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case, and 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.

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

__MHM__  __ENA __  __JTM__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077082	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710910	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.	144.0047	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.