MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 9 July 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002074150

         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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member
Mr. Roger W. Able		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That she served her time honorably for 3 years and deserves to receive the benefits of her GI Bill and an honorable discharge.

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

She enlisted on 2 March 1998, for a period of 4 years and training as an administrative specialist. She successfully completed her training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and remained there as permanent party. She was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 December 1998. She subsequently received orders transferring her to Alaska and voluntarily extended her enlistment on 20 April 2000, for a period of 16 months, in order to meet the service remaining requirement to accept the assignment. Her new expiration of term of service was changed to 1 July 2003.

She was transferred to Alaska on 2 June 2000 and was assigned to Fort Wainwright, Alaska, for duty as an administrative specialist in a signal company.

On 8 August 2001, her commander submitted a request for a rehabilitative transfer of the applicant or initiation of action to discharge her for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. He cited 19 different occasions in which the applicant had been involved in incidents ranging from being absent from duty, absence without leave, duty performance improvement, passing bad checks, family care counseling, promotion counseling, financial management counseling, failure to wear the proper uniform, domestic violence, postage theft, eviction from government quarters, anger management training, indebtedness, and disrespect to superiors.

Although the date of advancement is not present in the available records, her records show that she was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 and was subsequently reduced to the pay grade of E-3 through nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 14 September 2001. The actual NJP was imposed on 1 May 2001 and the punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended for 180 days), extra duty and restriction. It appears that the suspended punishment was vacated on 14 September 2001.

On 1 October 2001, her commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her from the service for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, that the applicant had stolen postage from the Army and that she had failed to respond to repeated counseling sessions regarding failure to repair, disrespect, assault, and indebtedness. He informed the applicant that he was recommending that she receive a general discharge. He also informed her of her rights and advised her to consult with counsel.

On 31 October 2001, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged that she had been advised of her rights. She indicated that she desired to submit a statement in her own behalf; however, there is no indication that she ever did so.

The commander initiated the action to separate her from the service on 17 November 2001 and recommended that she not be rehabilitatively transferred because she was resisting rehabilitation attempts, because it would create serious disciplinary problems or a hazard to the military mission, and because it would not be in the best interests of the Army. The chain of command recommended that she be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 19 November 2001 and directed that she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, she was discharged under honorable conditions on 7 December 2001, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. She had served 3 years, 9 months and 6 days of total active service.

She applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge on 1 March 2002. She offered no argument or basis for an upgrade of her discharge and after reviewing the evidence of record, the ADRB determined that she had been properly and equitably discharged. The ADRB voted unanimously to deny her request for an upgrade of her discharge on 5 June 2002.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under his command when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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. 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.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

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

4. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that her discharge was unjust and should be upgraded. Overall, the Board finds that she was afforded many opportunities by her chain of command to be successful and she elected not to take advantage of them. Accordingly, her service does not warrant a fully honorable discharge.

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

___jhl___ __tbr ____ ___rwa__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074150
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/09
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2001/12/07
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/ch13
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsat perf
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 572	144.4900/A49.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.