MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 29 November 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001061807

         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
Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson
Mr. John P. Infante		Member
Mr. William D. Powers		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: That her discharge is unjust because of the stress and pressure from her roommate, her father dying and living in a foreign country. She contends that she is a productive and responsible member of society.

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

The applicant enlisted on 11 October 1977 for a period of 3 years. She successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Meade, Maryland, for duty as an administrative specialist.

The applicant’s charge sheet is not contained in the available records. However, on 7 January 1981, the applicant consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. Her voluntary request for discharge shows the following charges were preferred against her: Charge I – Violation of Article 123, Forgery (4 specifications); Charge II – Violation of 121, Larceny (2 specifications) and Charge III – Violation of Article 134 (1 specification). She indicated in her request that she understood she could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that she may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that she may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA; and that she may be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. She also acknowledged that she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge. Additionally, she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

On 15 January 1981, the intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that she be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 15 January 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, dismissed the charges and specifications and directed that the applicant be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 26 January 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. She had served 3 years, 3 months and 18 days of total active service.

On 17 October 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 considered the applicant’s contentions that her discharge is unjust because of the stress and pressure from her roommate, her father dying and living in a foreign country. However, these matters are not grounds for upgrading her discharge.

2. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions regarding her post service conduct. However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

3. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that her quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4. The Board noted that the applicant had served 3 years, 3 months and 18 days of total active service at the time of her discharge. However, the Board determined that the seriousness of the applicant’s forgery and larceny offenses for which court-martial charges had been preferred against her are too serious to warrant relief in the form of a general discharge.

5. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

6. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separations were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7. The ADRB denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge to honorable on 17 October 1982.

8. 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.

9. 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

RVO____ JPI_____ WDP_____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061807
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2001061807
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810126
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 10
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.0200
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.