MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            13 May 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC97-05439

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:


Analyst

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the punishment was too great for the incidents.

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

On 9 September 1964 the applicant entered the Regular Army as a member of the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) for 3 years at age 20.  She successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort McClellan, Alabama.  Upon completion of AIT she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 710.00 (Clerk/Typist) and assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland for her first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record documents no individual acts of valor, achievement or service warranting special recognition, and indicates the highest grade held by the applicant while on active duty was private/E-2.  However, the record does contain an extensive record of disciplinary infractions including:  one summary court-martial; and acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on four different occasions.

On 10 November 1964, while still in training, the applicant accepted an NJP for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.  Her punishment for this offense was an oral reprimand.

On  25 April 1965 the applicant accepted an NJP for being AWOL from 
19 to 22 April 1965.  Her punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $25.00.

On 28 June 1965 the applicant accepted an NJP for breaking restriction.  The applicant was punished with a forfeiture of $10.00.

On 8 July 1965 the applicant was tried by summary court-martial for violation of Article 86 for being AWOL from 3 May to 7 June 1965.  The resultant sentence included:  reduction to the grade of private/E-1; 30 days restriction to the limits of Fort Meade, Maryland; and to forfeit $55.00.

On  23 July 1965 the applicant accepted an NJP for breaking restriction.  Her punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $40.00 a month for 2 months and restriction for 2 weeks.  The record indicates an additional period of AWOL from 15 to 16 June 1965 for which there is no recorded punishment.

On 9 August 1965 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of the intent to initiate elimination action on her, under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness. The commander cited the reasons for the action as the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities as evidenced by the following:  the applicant’s disciplinary record including her summary court-martial and four NJP’s; her numerous incidents of breaking restriction; her falsely reporting she had been raped, only to admit later there had been no rape; her allowing a man to take pornographic pictures of her; and finally her consistently demonstrating defective moral habits, irresponsibility, and an inability to profit from experience.

The applicant , after being advised of her rights and the basis for the contemplated elimination action, elected to waive her right to have her case heard by a board of officers; to waive her right to counsel, and she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  On 16 August 1965 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged with a UD.  Accordingly, on 23 August 1965 the applicant was discharged after completing 10 months and 5 days of active military service, and accruing 40 days of time lost due to AWOL.

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

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued a UD.

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 acknowledged the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the applicant’s desire for forgiveness.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board determined these factors were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her discharge.  

2.  The evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant does not support her contention that the discharge she received was too harsh or that she was denied assistance after being raped.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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 the aforementioned 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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director