| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | |
| Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That all negative statements and reviews, contained in her records, be expunged.
APPLICANT STATES: That she was not absent without leave (AWOL); that she was not insubordinate, and that she did not deserve any of the Article 15’s or any other charges that were brought against her. She states that she was unjustly treated by other members of the Women’s Army Corps; that she was raped, assaulted, and treated like a prisoner of war (POW) in her own barracks.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 17 October 1966, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and training in Army Career Group 91 (Medical Care and Treatment). Following completion of all required military training the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A, Medical Corpsman and was assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia as her first permanent duty assignment.
On 23 April 1967, the applicant wrote a letter to the President of the United States requesting assistance in getting out of the military. On 1 May 1967, the applicant received a response from the Adjutant General’s Office instructing her to seek assistance through her chain of command.
On 1 May 1967, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go to a reveille formation at 0630 hours and for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at Kenner Army Hospital at Fort Lee. Her punishment consisted of an oral reprimand.
On 23 May 1967, the applicant accepted NJP for breaking restriction and being AWOL from 2 May 1967 to 22 May 1967. Her punishment consisted of forfeiture of $23.00 pay for one month and 14 days’ extra duty and restriction.
On 8 September 1967, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications of AWOL for twice failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; one specification of disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer; and for disobeying a lawful command of her superior commissioned officer.
On an unknown date, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of an undesirable discharge and that she might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.
On 21 September 1967, the applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of the request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
On 17 October 1967, the appropriate authority approved the request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, on the same day, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 11 months and 12 days of active military service and accruing 19 days of lost time.
On 30 April 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge.
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: 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. 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.
2. The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that she was not AWOL, that she was not insubordinate, or that she did not deserve any Article 15’s. The evidence of record indicates the applicant accepted two NJP’s for twice failing to report to her place of duty; once for being AWOL for 19 days; and court-martial charges were preferred against her for twice being AWOL and twice disobeying a lawful order.
3. The applicant has not shown that she was raped, assaulted, treated like a POW, or unjustly treated by others in the Women’s Army Corps.
4. The Board carefully reviewed all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service as well as her misconduct. The Board determined that these numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.
5. 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
__jhl___ __rtd___ __ym____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR20020879462 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030415 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 126.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004982C070205
On 28 March 1967, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 15 November 1966 to 2 February 1967. On 14 November 1967, the applicant was released from active duty with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for expiration term of service. Records show the applicant received four nonjudicial punishments prior to her rape, one for being AWOL, and she only received one nonjudicial punishment following the rape.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021352
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Having been so advised, he voluntarily submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant acknowledged: a. he was making the request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person; b. he had been advised of the implications that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007949
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. On 21 September 1987, the separation authority directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, and that she receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707118
The commander indicated the recommendation was based on the applicant’s record of AWOL and two convictions by special court-martial. 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707118C070209
The commander indicated the recommendation was based on the applicants record of AWOL and two convictions by special court-martial. 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. This conclusion is based on her attempt to use the chain of command to pursue leaving the service prior to her going AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003218
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The discharge authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705439
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705439C070209
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008478C070205
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to show that his discharge was unjust. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error or unjust.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003353
Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 13 July 2010, the separation authority and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant contends she was raped while in training and was subsequently discharged for fraternization; however, the analyst noted that the applicant initially reported she was sexually assaulted during her childhood as...