RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           13 November 2003
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089667


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Arthur A. Omartian            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast         |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her general discharge (GD) under honorable
conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge and that she be paid
"unemployment benefits."

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of separation, she
was pregnant, but she was denied separation by reason of pregnancy.  She is
a single mother attending school full-time and seeking employment.  She
served in the military for 3 years and 6 months and believes she should be
entitled to receive unemployment benefits.  She also has cancerous cells on
her cervix that was diagnosed by the military prior to being separated.
Her military records will stipulate both that she was pregnant and her
length of service.

3.  The applicant provides a statement in support of her request that
states, in effect, that at the time of separation, she was pregnant, but
she was denied separation by reason of pregnancy.  She is a single mother
attending school full-time and seeking employment.  She served in the
military for 3 years and 6 months and believes she should be entitled to
receive unemployment benefits.  She also has cancerous cells on her cervix
that was diagnosed by the military prior to being separated.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that she enlisted in the Delayed
Entry Program (DEP) on 25 January 1999.  On 8 February 1999, she was
separated from the DEP and she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 4
years.  She completed the training requirements and she was awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 98J (Electronic Intelligence
Interceptor).  In September 1999, she was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.
The available records contain no medical documents.

2.  On 4 June 2001, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against
the applicant for being disrespectful in deportment towards a staff
sergeant.  Her punishment included 14 days of extra duty and restriction
(suspended) and a verbal reprimand.

3.  On 1 October 2001, NJP was imposed against the applicant for behaving
disrespectfully towards a commissioned officer; for leaving her appointed
place of duty without receiving the appropriate authority; and for failure
to go to her appointed place of duty (both on 6 September 2001).  Her
punishment included reduction from specialist, pay grade E-4, to private
first class, pay grade E-3.  The applicant appealed the NJP.  On 4 October
2001, the appropriate authority determined that the NJP was imposed in
compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies.  The punishment
imposed was neither unjust nor disproportionate to the offenses committed.
The appeal was denied.
4.  On 15 November 2001, a bar to enlistment was initiated against the
applicant.  The applicant's commander cited the above NJP's as the basis
for the bar.

5.  On 3 January 2002, the applicant's commander officially notified her
that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of
chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct with a GD.
 The applicant was advised that the basis for this recommendation were the
above offenses and that she had received nine negative counseling
statements.  One of the negative counseling statements was for
communicating a threat to harm the first sergeant on 7 September 2001.  The
applicant was advised of the rights available to her.

6.  On 29 January 2002, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  She
was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its
effects.  She was also advised of the rights available to her and that she
was not entitled to have an administrative separation hearing by a board of
officers.

7.  On 30 January 2002, in a letter addressed to the commander, the
applicant requested that the bar to reenlistment be lifted and that she be
allowed to remain in the Army and given a rehabilitative assignment.  She
described the problems that she experienced since arriving in the unit by
stating that, in 2000, her son was born and that her unit was aware she was
having problems with her family care plan.  She was pulled from a field
exercise when her family care plan fell apart; counseled and given 24 hours
to come up with a new family care plan.  She filed a complaint with the
Inspector General's (IG) Office because she felt she was not given an
appropriate amount of time to put a plan in place.  In 2001, she reported
to her unit that her noncommissioned officer (NCO)-in-charge was harassing
her and nothing was done.  She filed a second complaint with the IG and she
was assigned to work with a different NCO with whom she had no problems.
Shortly after she filed each complaint, she received an NJP for an
unrelated offense.  A couple of weeks after she filed the last complaint,
her commander told her to prepare a hardship discharge packet.  She
completed the packet and her commander recommended approval.  However, at
the same time a recommendation for separation under the provisions of
chapter 14 was being completed.  Finally, she stated that she blamed no one
for her problems, but that she wanted the opportunity to prove herself
without reprisal.

8.  The appropriated authority stated that, upon speaking to the applicant
and the NCO's in her chain of command, he believed it was not in the best
interest of the Army to grant a rehabilitative transfer.  The applicant had
already been reassigned within the battalion with no success.  The
applicant had demonstrated on too many occasions a lack of respect and
disregard of anyone in a position of authority and it was his opinion that
a rehabilitative transfer would not improve the applicant's behavior.
Further rehabilitative requirements were waived.

9.  On 17 January 2002, the appropriate authority directed that the
applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation
635-200, for a pattern of misconduct with a GD and that she not to be
transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.

10.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 11 July 2002, she was
separated under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for
misconduct with a GD.  She had completed 3 years, 5 months and 4 days of
active military service.  It shows no lost time.

11.  On 2 April 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of alcohol, convictions
by civil authorities and desertion or absences without leave.  Action will
be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established
that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy
states that a under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally
considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable
discharge may be granted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that prior to being separated she was diagnosed
to have cancerous cells on her cervix; that she was pregnant and denied
separation due to pregnancy and that she is being denied unemployment
benefits due to her GD.

2.  The evidence available clearly indicates that the applicant’s incidents
of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service.  Her behavior
was prejudicial to good order and discipline and diminished the quality of
service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

3.  The available record does not support the applicant’s contention,
stated in her 2002 letter to her commander (see Consideration of Evidence,
paragraph 7), that she requested a hardship discharge or that she was
diagnosed with any type of cancer prior to being separated.  The applicant
has submitted no evidence to the contrary.

4.  The type of administrative discharge a Soldier receives is at the
discretion of the chain of command.  Although a Soldier may request
separation for hardship or pregnancy, the chain of command may separate the
Soldier for other appropriate reasons, such as misconduct.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__aao___  __reb___  __ecp___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.



                 Arthur A. Omartian
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON


























                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003089667                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20031113                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20020711                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 14                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A60.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.6000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

7.  On 30 January 2002, in a letter addressed to the commander, the
applicant requested that the bar to reenlistment be lifted and that she be
allowed to remain in the Army and given a rehabilitative assignment.  She
described the problems that she experienced since arranging in the unit and
stated that she blamed no one; that she wanted the opportunity to prove
herself without reprisal.



-----------------------
[pic]