2.  The applicant requests, that her discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be graded to an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, in sworn testimony before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 14 April 1996, that she went AWOL because, from the moment that she arrived on Fort Belvoir, she was constantly harassed by her immediate supervisor, who was married; that he began asking her personal questions about her personal life; that her supervisor had a key to her room; that he would enter her room unofficially at will, while she was sleeping, showering etc.; that he made indecent comments about her body in front of other soldiers; that her supervisor continued to ask her out on dates and to hotel rooms, to which she refused; that her supervisor would get jealous when other male soldiers would talk to her; that he spread rumors about her being pregnant and having had an abortion; that she reported these incidents to her first sergeant and her commander verbally and in writing; that the command ignored her allegations and transferred her to another platoon (hereafter her supervisor will be referred to as her ex-supervisor); that her command was more concerned about not ruining her ex-supervisor’s career and family life than resolving the problem; that after reporting her ex-supervisor for sexual harassment, she noticed that her work load was harder than the other females in the unit; that she was unfairly given nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL); that she was placed on restriction, her Christmas leave was denied and her personal phone was taken away; that after being placed on restriction, her ex-supervisor unofficially entered her room again; that she felt that everyone was against her; that her unit was not sensitive or understanding of her concerns of sexual harassment from her ex-supervisor; that she went home to her mother to escape from the pressure and the pain of thinking that no one believed her.  She also states that the sexual harassment from her ex-supervisor does not excuse her action to go AWOL, but that she needed some help from her chain of command and she felt that no one was there for her.

4.  Her military records show that she was born on 
12 September 1968.  She completed 12 years of formal education.  On 11 March 1988, she enlisted into the Regular Army for 4 years.  Her Armed Forces Qualifications Test score was 38 (Category III).  She completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B10 (Military Police).  

5.  The applicant’s record indicates that she accepted an NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL.  However, the particulars, to include the dates of AWOL, and the date the NJP was administered, are missing from her files.  In her defense at the time, the applicant submitted a statement which stated, in effect, that she checked the duty roster before she left for the weekend and that she was not on duty.  However, when she returned to duty on Monday morning, she was informed that her command was preferring charges against her for being AWOL.  The applicant also states that she immediately rechecked the duty roster and discovered that the original name on the duty roster was now scratched out and her name was penciled in.  She informed her commander of what had happen with the duty roster and her 
commander told her that she did not want to discuss the situation and told the applicant to just take her punishment and that this action would not ruin her career.  The applicant also states that the commander informed her that she was not going to pursue the case against her ex-supervisor for sexual harassment because the applicant’s testimony would not hold up.

6.  On 25 December 1988, the applicant was reported for being AWOL.  On 21 February 1989, the applicant voluntarily turned herself over military authorities.

7.  On 1 March 1989, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 25 December 1988 to 21 February 1989.  

8.  On 2 March 1989, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  She was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in her behalf, but declined to do so.

9.  On 24 March 1989, the appropriate authority approved her request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 19 April 1989, she was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a discharge UOTHC.  She had 11 months and 11 days of creditable active service and 58 days of lost time.

10.  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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

11.  That same regulation, at chapter 5, provides, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of the Army may approve the discharge of soldiers for the convenience of Government, when it is determined that the discharge would be in the best interest of the Army.  An honorable discharge, a general discharge under honorable conditions, or an uncharacterized discharge, if the soldier is in an entry level status, may be directed under this separation authority. 

12.  On 12 October 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge.

13.  It is noted that the applicant’s current husband, who was her fiancée in 1988 and 1989, testified to the ADRB as to the veracity of her testimony concerning the first AWOL incident and as to her being sexually harassed.


CONCLUSIONS:

1.  From a purely legal standpoint, the applicant’s discharge from service was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time of her separation.

2.  While the conduct which led to the applicant’s separation cannot be condoned, the applicant’s record and her sworn testimony indicates that there were severe problems of sexual harassments within her command which should have been addressed.  The position that the command took to ignore the situation only intensified the problem and, in fact, probably encouraged the applicant to make the wrong decision to go AWOL in December of 1988 to escape from what she considered an impossible situation.  Her command had a moral and a legal obligation to investigate the matters involving the sexual harassment.  However, her command chose to ignore the problems and, as a result, a soldier’s career was destroyed.

3.  Accordingly, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge was too harsh; therefore, it would only be fair to upgrade her discharge UOTHC to a fully honorable discharge.

4.  Further, since the charges for which she was processed for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, appear not to have been properly investigated, it would also be fair and equitable to show that she was discharged for the convenience of the government under the plenoiary authority of the Secretary of the Army, as authorized by chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200.

5.  In view of the foregoing; it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing:

	a.  that the individual concerned was honorably discharged from the Army on 19 April 1989, under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority;

	b.  that the individual concerned be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated l9 April l989, denoting an honorable discharge in lieu of the discharge UOTHC now held by her; and

     c.  that she be restored to pay grade E-2, the pay grade she held prior to the approval of her discharge UOTHC.

	d.  that the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON