MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


                  IN THE CASE OF:
        


                  BOARD DATE: 9 September 2003
                  DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003089189

         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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson
Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member
Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		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: In effect, that her discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That her period of unauthorized absence was the result of trauma caused by emergency surgery in a German Hospital. She states that she was offered a discharge upon her return to military control and that due to her mental health condition at the time, she was unable to weigh the options that were provided to her. She states that upgrading her discharge will allow her to receive veteran’s benefits for residuals of her trauma. She goes on to state that her Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214) was prepared without records and it was never issued to her as indicated on her DD Form 214. In support of her appeal, she submits a letter from a Congressman’s office dated 14 January 1986, urging her to return herself to military control; an undated letter to her from Cutler Army Hospital, Headquarters, Fort Devens Medical Department Activity; a copy of a letter from a psychologist dated 1 November 1985; a copy of a letter prepared by the applicant dated 16 October 1992, explaining the events that took place when she was absent without leave (AWOL); a copy of a letter that she prepared dated 27 October 1992; a copy of a letter prepared by her mother dated 26 October 1992; a letter of recommendation prepared by a law office, addressed to the Office of The Purple Heart dated 17 December 2002; a letter prepared by a friend, addressed to the Office of the Purple Heart dated 30 December 2002; and a letter prepared by a retired Army staff sergeant, addressed to the Office of the Purple Heart dated 10 January 2003.

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

On 9 February 1984, she enlisted in the Army at Fort Dix, New Jersey, for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. She successfully completed her training as a hawk missile crewmember and she was transferred to Germany on 8 June 1984.

She was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 9 August 1984 and to the pay grade of E-3 on 9 February 1985.

On 1 November 1985, a letter was prepared by what appears to be a psychologist at the St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center addressed to Fort Drum, explaining that the applicant was initially examined at the Gouverneur Mental Health Clinic on 17 October 1985 and that due to the seriousness of her condition which included depression, thoughts of suicide, as well as a highly anxious and distraught state, it was felt that she should be transferred to the St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center for inpatient service. The letter further explains that she was suffering the results of stress concerning her placement in the Army and the various events she experienced which were psychologically disabling. The psychologist stated that, during the time of his evaluation, her condition seemed to have been basically precipitated by the fact that she had a great need to be discharged from the Army. The psychologist further stated that the applicant was confined at St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center for a period of 12 days where she received various forms of group and individual therapy and that she was recently discharged into a follow-up care arrangement with the Gouverneur Mental Health Clinic. The psychologist went on to state that she would be seen in individual therapy on a once a week basis until such time as she demonstrated much improvement in her psychological state. The psychologist concluded by stating that the center was hopeful that there would be certain changes in her environment, particularly with regard to her family situation, as well as her aspirations for the future and that the changes and clarifications would be necessary before a discharge would be considered.

In a letter dated 14 January 1986, a Congressman’s office responded to correspondence that was received from the applicant regarding her AWOL. In the letter, the Congressman informed her that there was nothing he could do to assist her until she returned to military control.

On 28 January 1986, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against her for being AWOL from 12 December 1985 until 23 January 1986. She acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, she submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time that she submitted her request for discharge, she acknowledged that she understood that if her request for discharge was accepted, she may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and that she understood the effects of a less than honorable discharge.

Along with a request for discharge, she submitted a statement in her own behalf indicating that she went AWOL because she had many stressful problems while she was in Germany and that she wanted to be discharged; however, she was told that she needed a good reason. She stated that she tried to get a discharge through her Congressman and that she stayed home until she heard further word from him. She stated, in effect, that by the time that she heard from her Congressman, she had been AWOL for so long that she believed that what she was doing was legal. She continued by stating that she was close to a nervous breakdown and that as a result, she was hospitalized. She concluded by stating that she spoke with her executive officer in Germany, a chaplain at Fort Drum and her first sergeant and that she was unsure that they were aware of the extent of her problems.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 21 March 1986. Accordingly, on 16 June 1986, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. She had completed 2 years, 2 months and 27 days of total active service and she had approximately 41 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; howeve, there is no evidence of record that shows that emergency surgery in a hospital in Germany was the cause of her problems and even if it were, she failed to mention it in her statement when she submitted her request for discharge. There is no evidence of record that shows that she attempted to resolve any problem that she may have been experiencing through her chain of command prior to going AWOL.

4. The records show that she went AWOL and while she was absent, she was seen by a civilian psychologist who opined that she was suffering the results of stress concerning her placement in the Army and that her condition seemed to have been basically precipitated by the fact that she had a great need to be discharged from the Army.

5. The evidence of record further shows that she submitted a request for discharge because she had no desire to remain in the Army and although she may now believe that she made a wrong choice, she should not be allowed to change her mind at this late date.



6. 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.

7. 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

__wtm___ __tap ___ __slp ___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089189
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2003/09/09
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19860616
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10
DISCHARGE REASON	689
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 708	144.7100/CONDUCT TRIABLE BY CM
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.