IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 March 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100022955 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests her discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable. 2. She states her decision [to request discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10] was made entirely on one incident. She contends she has not been in any trouble since she was discharged. 3. She provides: * U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dismissal and Notice of Rights from the San Diego Local Office * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States) * Standard Form 86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions) * DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States) with annexes * chapter 10 discharge proceedings * five DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 September 1999 for a period of 3 years. 2. Charges were preferred against her on 3 September 2002 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 June 2001 to 21 June 2002. 3. On 25 September 2002, she consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, she admitted guilt to the offense charged. She acknowledged that she might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that she might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs if a UOTHC discharge were issued. She elected to submit statements in her own behalf; however, any statements made by her are not available. 4. The separation authority approved her request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial with issuance of a UOTHC discharge. 5. She was discharged on 5 November 2002 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge. She completed 2 years and 29 days of active military service with 381 days of lost time. 6. On 9 July 2010, the Army Discharge Review Board denied her request for an upgrade of her discharge. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. 8. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 9. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contentions that her decision was made entirely on one incident and that she has not been in any trouble since she was discharged are acknowledged. However, the evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken in her case were in error or unjust. 2. Her service record shows she was charged with the commission of an offense (AWOL) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. She voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. Her service record shows she was AWOL for 381 days. As a result, her record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel for an honorable or a general discharge. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100022955 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100022955 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1