RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 February 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070014111


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Sherri V. Ward                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |

      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, in effect, that her under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she choose to be discharged in
lieu of trial by court-martial because she was told she could go to jail if
she lost her case.  She further states she was told she was incapable of
being rehabilitated; however, she has changed and matured, and now works
full time, goes to school, and takes care of her children.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of
her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 14 January 2003.  She was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 92G (Food Service Specialist), and
the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was private
first class (PFC).

2.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  Her record reveals
a disciplinary history that includes her acceptance of non-judicial
punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) on 17 December 2004, for three specifications of
failing to report to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time,
making a false official statement, and wrongfully consuming alcohol while
under the age of 21.  Her punishment for these offenses was a reduction to
private/E-2 (Suspended) and 14 days of extra duty.  The record also shows
that she was formally counseled by members of her chain of command for a
myriad of disciplinary infractions on 11 separate occasions between
November 2004 and February 2005.

3.  On 1 March 2006, a Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared preferring
court-martial charges against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the
UCMJ by being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 23 March through
on or about 6 May 2005; and for two specifications of violating Article 126
of the UCMJ by willfully and wrongfully damaging a vehicle, the property of
another Soldier, on or about 24 January 2005 and again on 16 February 2005.


4.  On 3 March 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the
maximum punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the significance of a bad
conduct or dishonorable discharge, and of the possible effects of an UOTHC
discharge.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily
requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of
chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.

5.  In her request for discharge, the applicant stated that by submitting
the request for discharge, she was acknowledging her guilt of the charge
against her or of a lesser included offense therein contained, which also
authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She
further indicated that she understood that if her request for discharge
were approved, she could receive an UOTHC discharge, which could result in
her being deprived of many or all Army benefits that she would be
administratively reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, and that she could
be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).  She further acknowledged her understanding that she
could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of
an UOTHC discharge, and she was advised that she could submit statements in
his own behalf.

6.  The applicant submitted a statement in her own behalf, in which she
requested to be issued a general, under honorable conditions discharge
(GD).  She also outlined the reasons for making this request, which were
primarily her desire to be able to rehabilitate herself after she was
discharged.

7.  On 17 March 2005 (sic, should read “2006”), the separation authority
approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army
Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service, and directed the applicant
receive an UOTHC discharge and that she be reduced to the lowest enlisted
grade.  On 27 March 2006, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD
Form 214 issued the applicant upon her discharge confirms she completed a
total of 3 years, 1 month, and 1 day of creditable active military service
and that she accrued 43 days of time lost due to AWOL.

8.  On 2 July 2007, the Army Discharge Review Board, after considering the
applicant's entire record of service, voted to deny the applicant's request
for an upgrade of her discharge.

9.  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.
An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged
in lieu of trial by court-martial.  However, the separation authority may
direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall
record during the current enlistment.  An honorable discharge is not
authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any
other characterization clearly would be improper.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her discharge should be upgraded based
on her post-service conduct was carefully considered.  However, although
her post-service accomplishments are noteworthy, this factor alone is not
sufficiently mitigating to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does
confirm she was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under
the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.

3.  The evidence of record shows that after consulting with defense
counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in
lieu of trial by
court-martial.  In her request for discharge, she admitted guilt to the
charge against her, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized
the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily
requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in
her receiving a punitive discharge.  The UOTHC discharge the applicant
received was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance, and her
overall record of service was not sufficiently meritorious to support the
issuance of a general or honorable discharge by the separation authority at
the time of her discharge, nor does it support an upgrade of her discharge
at this time.

5.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MKP _  __SVW  _  __JCR __  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.




                                  _____Margaret K. Patterson____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070014111                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/02/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2006/03/27                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |C10                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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