2. The applicant requests, in effect, that her undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable. She claims, in effect, that she joined the Army against the advise of her father and that she thought based on her discussions with recruiters that if she were unable to adjust she could get out.

3. Her counsel states that the applicant’s ability to serve was diminished as a result of her deprived background and the fact that she had been sexually assaulted while on active duty and was not provided any help by the military establishment either through counseling or psychiatric care. Counsel suggests this would be an automatic reaction by current day military standards even if it were not the procedure at the time.

4. On 16 November 1966 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. At the time of her enlistment she was 18 years old and had completed only
11 years of formal education. She was assigned to Fort McClellan, Alabama for basic training.

5. The applicant’s stated confusion, based on her father’s stated opinion of the Women’s Army Corps (WAC), is evidenced by her requesting a counseling session with her unit commander, which took place on 13 March 1967. In this session she put forth her desire to leave the Army based on her inability to adapt and because of the reputation of the
WAC’s. The commander indicates in a Commanding Officer’s Inquiry dated 14 April 1967 that the applicant’s cousin had attempted to get her to go AWOL the previous week and that the applicant had refused.

6. On 14 March 1967 the applicant went AWOL from her unit and remained absent for 87 days until 8 June 1967. She again went AWOL on 10 June 1967 and remained in that status for 15 days until 24 June 1967.

7. There is a Standard Form 600, (chronological record of medical care) dated 16 June 1967, contained in the record which documents that the applicant, one week prior to being seen, had been raped while in an AWOL status. This was a medical treatment report made at an emergency room and there is no evidence in the record of any follow up counseling or care regarding the rape incident from either medical authorities or the chain of command.

8. On 7 July 1967 the applicant was tried by special
court-martial for two specifications of violation of Article 86 (AWOL) of the UCMJ for the periods of AWOL listed above. She was found guilty of both specifications and sentenced to 2 months of hard labor without confinement and to forfeit $60 per month for 2 months.

9. On 7 August 1967 in a letter subject performance of duty the applicant’s previous commander from Fort McClellan, Alabama stated in part that the applicant prior to going AWOL was an above average performer in all respects and always presented a neat and military appearance.

10. On 8 September 1967 the applicant again went AWOL and remained absent until she surrendered to military authorities at Fort Hood, Texas on 11 February 1968 after 187 days. On 16 February 1968 she was again tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 86 (AWOL) of the UCMJ, found guilty and sentenced to 6 months confinement at hard labor and to forfeit $41 per month for 6 months.

11. On 23 February 1968 the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist who indicated the applicant had difficulty adjusting in a positive manner to the code of military living. He further opined that the applicant’s disrupted family background had caused her motivation to decrease and become negative.

12. On 6 March 1968 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to discharge her under the provisions of
AR 635-212 for unfitness. The commander indicated the recommendation was based on the applicant’s record of AWOL and two convictions by special court-martial.

13. On 19 February 1968, in coordination with counsel, the applicant completed her election of rights. On 21 March 1968 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed a UD. Accordingly, on 28 March 1968 the applicant was discharged after completing 6 months,
28 days of military service, and accruing 289 days of lost time.
CONCLUSIONS :

1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time and was justified based on the applicant’s repeated incidents of AWOL. However, there were underlying factors in the applicant’s background that should have been identified by the chain of command prior to her misconduct and which could have been more appropriately dealt with through counseling, or perhaps a less harsh punitive discharge and a more favorable characterization of service.

2. The Board determined that the applicant believed, because she understood her recruiter to tell her, she could voluntarily leave the Army if she were unable to adapt. This conclusion is based on her attempt to use the chain of command to pursue leaving the service prior to her going AWOL. Her desire to use appropriate means to separate are further evidenced by her resistance to going AWOL the week before she requested separation from the Army through her commander on 13 March 1967.

3. Although the Army had no liability or fault in the rape incident experienced by the applicant, while she was in an AWOL status, the system should have been more compassionate and understanding upon her return to military control. The evidence of record is void of any attempt by either medical personnel or the chain of command to provide even the most rudimentary rape counseling to help the applicant through what must have been a most difficult period.

4. The applicant was an above average performer and presented a neat and military appearance prior to her going AWOL as attested to by her previous commander. There is no record of any disciplinary record other than AWOL.
While the offense of repeated AWOL is not condoned by the Board, consideration should be given to the fact that it was strictly a military infraction and not otherwise a serious offense against society.




5. In view of the foregoing, it appears that the interest of justice would be best served by changing the applicant’s UD to GD. In view of her overall disciplinary record a fully honorable is not considered appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION :

1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a general discharge on 28 March 1968.

2. That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Regular Army dated 28 March 1968, in lieu of the UD of the same date now held by her.

3. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE :

GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                 
                  CHAIRPERSON