APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the reason, authority and characterization of service for her discharge be corrected.

APPLICANT STATES : That her discharge was based on false allegations. She did not participate in homosexual acts, she did not have poor duty performance, she did get along with her peers and noncommissioned officers (NCO’s), and the negative counselings she was given had no basis in fact. She became the target of her peers and her superiors when she requested discharge to attend college and she accused her roommates of homosexual activities. However, no action was ever taken against her roommates since they both worked directly for the unit commander. In addition, the counseling forms which were provided to the discharge authority did not have her rebuttals to the acts that she was accused of performing.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 November 1987, was awarded the military occupational specialty of military police, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.

On 13 July 1993 the applicant’s commander notified her of her (the commander’s) intent to recommend her discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. The reason for her recommendation was the applicant’s violation of published company policy by having a guest in her room overnight on several occasions, for engaging in indecent acts with another female, for making unwanted sexual advances towards other female soldiers, for failing to go to work on time, for failing to follow orders from NCO’s, and for her counseling file showing that she had a history of unsatisfactory performance and misconduct.

Prior to making that recommendation, her commander sent her for a psychiatric evaluation, which showed no abnormalities.  Her commander also had the applicant sent for a polygraph test to resolve the issues of whether she had an overnight guest in her billets room and if she was nude in bed with that female guest. The preliminary results of the polygraph test was that deception was indicated in her responses to pertinent questions on those matters.

When the applicant was notified that she had the right to submit matters in her own behalf but did not have the right to have a board of officers consider her case, she submitted a lengthy letter. In that letter she itemized all the derogatory documentation being used against her and outlined how she was innocent of any wrongdoing in any of the incidents in question. The applicant attested that her roommates turned against her when she reported their homosexual behavior, that her commander would not take any action against her roommates since they worked for her in the orderly room, and her roommates recruited other enlisted soldiers to make false accusations against her. She was also the subject of a distortion of facts by the NCO’s in her unit to justify their writing negative counseling statements on her. That distortion began when she requested an early release from active duty to go to school.

The applicant’s legal counsel also submitted a lengthy letter in her behalf at that time. In that letter counsel attempted to discredit the enlisted soldiers who had made statements against the applicant by alleging they were the ones having homosexual activities and implicated the applicant in an effort to nullify her allegations against them. Counsel continued that the applicant had been singled out since she had been held accountable for having overnight guests when her roommates had not. Counsel then reiterated the applicant’s explanation for the other incidents of alleged unsatisfactory performance and misconduct which were cited as a basis for her discharge.

In response to those letters the Chief, Criminal Law Division, submitted a memorandum which addressed every contention made by both the applicant and her counsel. In conclusion the lawyer preparing that memorandum stated that there was sufficient evidence to support the pattern of misconduct alleged against the applicant. She had been counseled on three occasions for failing to repair, on one occasion for disobeying an order, and had two eyewitness complaints filed against her for indecent acts, sexual harassment and violation of the guest policy. The lawyer explained that only two of those instances had to be accepted by the convening authority for him to approve a discharge for a pattern of misconduct, and that the indecent acts alone would warrant discharge for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. The lawyer recommended that the convening authority approve the applicant’s discharge for a pattern of misconduct.

The appropriate authority then approved the applicant’s commander’s recommendation and she was issued a General Discharge Certificate for a pattern of misconduct on 12 August 1993. She had 5 years, 9 months and 9 days of service.

On 21 April 1997 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge and to change the reason and authority of her discharge.

DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. The applicant has made a multitude of allegations against fellow enlisted soldiers, NCO’s in her former command, and her former commander, but has not submitted any evidence to substantiate her allegations.

2. It does not appear likely that two separate “conspiracies” against the applicant could have occurred simultaneously, either lending weight to the other. It also does not appear likely that when serious allegations such as those made by the applicant are subjected to scrutiny by higher headquarters and other investigative organizations (EO and IG) that wrongdoing would not be uncovered if it had, in fact, occurred.

3. Whether or not the applicant’s rebuttals to her counselings were viewed by the convening authority or not is a moot point. Both her and her counsel outlined her version of the events which were used as the basis for her discharge.

4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION : The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE :

GRANT

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                                                      Karl F. Schneider
                                                      Acting Director