| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That her average conduct and efficiency ratings were very good. She states that within the first 8 or 9 months she was promoted to the rank of private (E-3) and that it was not until after a new first sergeant was assigned to her unit when everything began to go wrong. She goes on to state that the new first sergeant began to condone the sexual harassment and harmful pranks that were being played on her by the men in her unit. She states that she completed training in communication and yet she was kept in front of a copy machine in a small office until she was eventually placed in the field to work in communication. She states that she was late for formation and missed guard duty and was demoted and later discharged from the military. She states that she did not know that her discharge was going to be less than honorable nor did she know that she had any other options. She further states that due to her youth and immaturity, she was not equipped to deal with sexual harassment or the stress that the harassment placed on her new marriage. She states that her chain of command abused its authority when it decided that she should be issued a general discharge and that her punishment was too severe and unfair. She concludes by stating that she is now in therapy for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and it is time for the past injustice to be corrected.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 17 August 1982, she enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. She successfully completed her training as a tactical wire operations specialist. On 17 February 1983, she was advanced to pay grade E-2 and to pay grade E-3 on 17 August 1983.
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 6 December 1983, for failure to go to her appointed place of duty. Her punishment consisted of extra duty for 7 days.
On 5 January 1984, NJP was imposed against her again for failure to go to her appointed place of duty. Her punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-2 and extra duty for 14 days.
On 2 February 1984, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for elimination from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. She acknowledged receipt of the notification on 3 February 1984 and, after consulting with counsel, she waived her rights indicating that she understood the effects of a less than honorable discharge; the rights available to her; and the effects of any action taken by her commander in waiving her rights.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 6 February 1984. Accordingly, on 16 February 1984, the applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, as a result of unsatisfactory performance. She completed 1 year and 6 months of total active service and was furnished a general discharge.
A review of the records fails to show that the applicant ever complained through her chain of command either verbally or in writing regarding sexual harassment.
On 27 December 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge. At the time of her application to that board, she asserted that she did not blame anyone for her actions at the time but that she now believed that she could perform better and would like to reenlist.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize her rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the available facts of the case.
3. The applicant's contention that she was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years old at the time that she had NJP imposed against her for her first act of misconduct.
4. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. However, there is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence that shows that she was sexually harassed while she was in the Army or that her chain of command abused its authority by recommending her for discharge. The evidence of record clearly shows that she was discharged only after she had NJP imposed against her twice for failure to go to her appointed place of duty. She was also advised of the rights available to her and of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. After consulting with counsel she opted to waive her rights and considering the nature of her offenses, it does not appear that the general discharge that she received is too severe as her service was not totally honorable.
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.
6. 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
___mdm_ __kak ___ ___tl ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066778 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/23 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1984/02/16 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 572 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 661 | 144.6700 |
| 2. 670 | 144.6710 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016351
The applicant's records show she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 22 September 1982. This form also shows that she completed 2 years, 1 month, and 1 day of creditable active military service. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004693
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 5 September 1984, the applicant underwent a physical examination for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. On 4 October 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022479
However, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 5 October 1984 for misconduct (pattern of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12b. However, there is no evidence of record and he provided no evidence which shows he was a victim of sexual harassment. ___________X_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013182
In her self-authored statement, dated 13 August 2007, the applicant describes her difficulties adjusting to a predominantly male Army and describes occasions of sexual harassment she encountered during her military service. The applicant was neither married nor had any children during her military service. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013942
On 14 March 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 15 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of homosexuality with the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions. There is no indication she petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge or concerning the narrative reason for her separation within that board's 15-year statute of limitation. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009334
She was discharged under other than honorable conditions for writing bad checks, which in turn placed her and her daughter in a serious bind. Accordingly, on 17 December 1985 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. There is no evidence nor has she submitted any evidence to support her contentions that she was sexually harassed and made to be an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019286
The applicant requests correction of her military records by removing her nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and the record of her being absent without leave (AWOL). The commander also stated the applicant had received 3 company grade NJPs and a summarized NJP. It states that the decision to file the NJP on the performance or restricted portion of the AMHRR will be determined by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017803C071113
Ernestine I Fields | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 31 December 1985, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a discharge under honorable conditions. Therefore, given the circumstances in this case and that there is no evidence in the available record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022520
d. A DD Form 214 that shows she was discharged on 19 March 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct pattern of misconduct in the rank/grade of private/E-1 with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. However, her record contains a DD Form 214 that shows she was discharged on 19 March 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct pattern of misconduct with an under other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610205cC070209
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. On 12 October 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing: a. that the individual...