IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        4 November 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080011386


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable, that her type of separation be changed to retirement, and that her rank/pay grade be changed to SGT/E-5 (Sergeant).

2.  The applicant states her discharge is inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident over a career of almost 11 years.  She states she was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by repeated sexual trauma and harassment, and she was under psychiatric care.  A great deal of time has passed since her discharge and her post-service accomplishments, combined with her many years of quality military service, mitigate her discrediting incident.

3.  The applicant provides:

	a.  A letter, Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), Atlanta Medical Center, dated 5 May 2008, stating that she is being treated for PTSD, major depressive disorder, and cannabis (marijuana) dependence.

	b.  Two letters from Dr. P.H.C., M.D., Psychiatry, dated 7 May 2008 and 10 August 2007.

	c.  A 20 May 2008 letter from the DVA Medical Center (Atlanta) to the applicant.

	d.  A 20 May 2008 letter from the DVA Medical Center (Atlanta) to the Veterans Service Center, Decatur, GA.

	e.  A 19 January 2007 electronic mail (e-mail) in 2 pages.

	f.  A DVA Rating Decision, dated 14 May 2008, granting service connection for asthma with a 10 percent rating, and denying service connection for PTSD with chronic depression and psychotic episodes brought on by sexual harassment, seizures, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

	g.  Transcripts, Central Michigan University.

	h.  E-mail, dated 20 May 2008.

	i.  Army Discharge Review Board letter, dated 25 June 2007, and Case Report, dated 13 June 2007, denying a discharge upgrade.

	j.  Letter from applicant’s Representative in Congress, dated 12 June 2008.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests same as above (SAB).

2.  Counsel states she would like to be informed of the Board’s final action.

3.  Counsel provides SAB.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With 8 years, 7 months, and 8 days of prior active and inactive service, the applicant served on active duty as a US Army Reserve (USAR) Soldier from 27 January 1991 through 16 May 1994.  She held the rank of SGT and the military occupational specialty (MOS) of 71L (Administrative Specialist).

2.  On 29 October 1993 at Fort Gillem, GA, the applicant used a fake USAR identification (ID) card to open a deferred payment plan (DPP) account at the Post Exchange (PX).  She then purchased items valued at $1,179.95 from the PX.  She was apprehended and charged with larceny and altering a military ID card.



3.  On 7 March 1994, formal court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant.  On 12 April 1994, she consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested 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 so doing, she acknowledged she was guilty of the charges against her which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and that she did not desire further rehabilitation, nor did she have any desire for further military service.  She stated that she understood the nature and consequences of the UOTHC discharge that she might receive.  She indicated a desire to submit a statement in her own behalf.

4.  In her statement, the applicant asked that she receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge rather than a UOTHC discharge.  She excused her actions as “mental strain that has caused me to make some bad judgment.”  She mentioned financial problems and the prospect of losing her children.  She offered her otherwise good service record in mitigation.

5.  The approving authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed she be reduced to the rank of Private and issued a UOTHC discharge.  On 16 May 1994, she was discharged.  Her DD Form 214 incorrectly indicated the type of separation as “retirement” vice “discharge.”  This error was corrected on 1 August 1995 through the issuance of a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214).

6.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.  The ADRB, after considering his case on 13 June 2007, denied her request.

7.  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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant committed a serious criminal act for which she was apprehended by military police authorities and for which court-martial charges were preferred.  Had she been convicted at trial, she could have received a Federal felony conviction and a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.

2.  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 court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show she wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that she might have received.

4.  In her statement to the chapter 10 approving authority, the applicant did not mention one word of having suffered sexual trauma and harassment.  Instead, she said she had financial and family problems and was worried about losing her children.  There is nothing in the applicant’s service record to indicate she ever complained of sexual harassment.  The DVA denied her service connection for a claim of PTSD.

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

___X____  __X_____  ___X____  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.



															XXX
      _______ _   _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080011386



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080011386



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1