MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 10 July 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003085405

         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:

Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson
Mr. Larry C. Bergquist		Member
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In a five-page statement that she enlisted for training as a stenographer (71C) and while in advanced individual training (AIT), she was told that she did not pass the test for award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 71C and that she would be sent to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for artillery training. She goes on to state that she received orders to Fort Sill and went absent without leave (AWOL) for several days before turning herself in to a Selfridge, Michigan Army base. After being at Fort Sill for several weeks, her mother called her and told her that her uncle had died and she informed her commander that she wanted to go home for the funeral. After explaining to her commander the importance of her going home, he made her contact the Red Cross and then denied her the opportunity to go home. She again went AWOL and again turned herself in to Selfridge, Michigan. She was returned to Fort Sill and given a choice to be retrained or get out of the Army. Being confused and angry, she chose to get out. She also states that she elected to make a statement at the time that described how she felt and after being told by three officers that she would be giving up everything, to include benefits, she signed her paperwork. In about 2 weeks she found herself back in civilian life. She continues by stating that she worked at menial jobs to make ends meet and realized that she needed more education, so she started attending college to attain her degree in criminal justice/sociology. She further states that she is a single parent of six children trying to get off of public assistance, who has been unable to get a professional job because of her discharge; despite the fact that she meets the educational requirements. She also contends that she was not provided counsel at the time, a psychiatric evaluation by a psychiatrist trained in psychiatry, no diagnosis of a personality disorder, that her offenses were minor isolated offenses, that her ability to serve was impaired by youth, immaturity, marital and family problems. In support of her application she submits nine third party character references, of which one is a duplicate.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army in Detroit, Michigan, on 7 February 1978, for a period of 3 years and training as a stenographer in MOS 71C. At the time of her enlistment she acknowledged that she understood that if she was relieved from training for academic deficiencies, disciplinary reasons, or failure to receive the required clearance, she would be reassigned in accordance with the needs of the Army and would be required to complete the term of service for which she enlisted.

She completed her basic combat training and was transferred to Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, to undergo her AIT. She was relieved from the 71C AIT for academic deficiency and received orders transferring her to Fort Sill to undergo AIT as a field artillery target acquisition specialist in MOS 17C, with a report date of 28 July 1978. She failed to report as ordered and was reported as AWOL until she was returned to military control on 18 August 1978. The following day (19 August 1978) she again departed AWOL and remained absent until she was returned to military control on 20 September 1978 and charges were preferred against her on 6 October 1978.

On 12 October 1978, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In her request she indicated that she was making the request of her own free will, without coercion from anyone and that she was aware of the implications attached to her request. She also admitted that she was guilty of the charges against her, or of lesser included offenses, which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. She acknowledged that she understood that she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge. She further elected to submit a statement in her own behalf in which she asserted that she could not adjust to military life and that she had numerous family problems, which included the death of her uncle and threats from the people who killed him to kill the rest of the family. She further stated that she had married on 6 February 1978, the day before she enlisted, and that her husband was now in prison. Additionally, her mother was in bad health. She acknowledged that she understood that she could get a better education and a better start on life by completing her time in the Army; however, she simply could not adjust. She was 20 years of age at the time she made the statement.

She underwent a medical/physical examination on 18 October 1978 and was deemed qualified for separation. She also underwent a mental status evaluation and was deemed to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved her request on 20 October 1978 and directed that she be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 November 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. She had served 7 months and 13 days of total active service and had 53 days of lost time due to AWOL.

She applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 15 August 1979, for an upgrade of her discharge. The ADRB evaluated her record of service and determined that her discharge was both proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny relief on 26 February 1981.

The eight third party statements seek to praise the applicant's character, work ethic, job performance and willingness to excel.

A review of her records fails to show that she ever sought assistance from the chain of command regarding her problems at the time or that she surfaced them prior to being charged with AWOL.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, provides for the separation of enlisted personnel for personality disorders. It provides, in pertinent part, that a person separated under this chapter must be diagnosed by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnoses.

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 applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by courtmartial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3. After being afforded the opportunity to assert her innocence before a trial by court-martial, she voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on her records. In doing so she admitted guilt to the charges against her. While she may now believe that she made the wrong choice, she should not be allowed to change her mind at this late date, especially considering the length of her absence as well as her otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.
4. The Board has noted the applicant’s supporting documents and finds that they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances. While many of her problems existed prior to her enlistment, it appears that she chose instead to go AWOL rather than to seek assistance from her chain of command to help resolve her problems or fulfill her contractual obligations.

5. The Board has also noted the applicant's contentions and finds them to be without merit. She received a mental status evaluation and was deemed mentally responsible. A psychiatric evaluation was not required and the applicant made the choice of requesting discharge rather than being tried by a court-martial, whereas she could have asserted her innocence or offered matters in extenuation before a jury of her peers.

6. While the Board commends her for her efforts to improve herself, she acknowledged at the time she understood the effects the discharge would have on her in civilian life. Accordingly, the Board finds that one's desire to obtain better employment is insufficient in itself to overcome an undistinguished record of service.

7. 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.

8. 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

___lb ___ ___be___ ___ra ___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085405
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/10
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1978/11/13
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/ch10
DISCHARGE REASON	Gd of service
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 689	144.7000/a70.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.