RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        10 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004104989


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne V. Berry              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge by reason of
"service-connected physical disability."

2.  The applicant states as summarized in her brief submitted by counsel.

3.  The applicant provides civilian and military medical records.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the applicant's "conviction" be removed; that her
discharge be characterized as honorable; and that her narrative reason for
separation be classified as "medical."

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that:

      a.  The applicant was free of psychiatric symptoms prior to her
enlistment.

      b.  The applicant began demonstrating unusual behavior while
stationed in Germany.

      c.  The applicant's absence without leave (AWOL) from Germany,
subsequent conviction, and resultant UOTHC discharge were the result of
mental illness and should be excused.

      d.  The applicant's failure to timely file her request for correction
of her military records should be excused because of her mental condition.

3.  Counsel provides copies of the applicant's civilian and military
medical records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 24 July 1980.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 4 October 2002.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  With prior service in the Army National Guard (ARNGUS), the applicant
enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 1 February 1979.  She enlisted
in the rank of Private First Class and in military occupational specialty
(MOS) 44E, Machinist.  She also enlisted to serve in Europe.

4.  The applicant reported to Fort Jackson, South Carolina on 1 February
1979.  On 2 March 1979, she was transferred to her enlistment area of
choice – Germany.  She arrived in Germany on/about 13 March 1979 and was
assigned to Company B, 708th Maintenance Battalion with duties in her MOS.

5.  The applicant's records do not reveal any adjustment problems or
disciplinary infractions in Germany.  On 1 November 1979, she was promoted
to the rank of Specialist Four.

6.  On 12 February 1980, the applicant went AWOL from her unit in Germany.
She was dropped from her unit rolls as a deserter on 12 March 1980.  On
31 May 1980, she was apprehended by civil authorities in Cincinnati, Ohio
and returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort
Knox, Kentucky.

7.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 June
1980.  On 10 June 1980, she declined a separation physical examination.  On
13 June 1980, she consulted with legal counsel who explained the charges
against her and the maximum punishment she could receive if convicted.
Counsel also advised her that she could request discharge for the good of
the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and of the ramifications of
doing so, to include receiving a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant requested
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

8.  The complete separation packet is no longer contained in the
applicant's records.  However, the applicant was discharged UOTHC on 24
July 1980 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for
the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

9.  The applicant submits civilian medical documents from September 1989 to
October 1997 which show that she has been diagnosed as a paranoid
schizophrenic.  Her military medical records indicate no referral for a
mental health status examination and no such diagnosis.

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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is
authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in order to serve in her MOS
in Europe.  The Army fulfilled the applicant's enlistment contract, sending
her to serve in Germany with the 708th Maintenance Battalion.

2.  The applicant initially did well in Germany and was promoted to the
next higher grade within 1 year of being assigned.  However, after
approximately 11 months in Europe, the applicant, for reasons unknown, went
AWOL.

3.  Following her arrest by civil authorities, she was returned to military
control.  Court-martial charges were preferred against her.  The
applicant’s record is partially void of facts and circumstances concerning
the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  The applicant’s record
contains a form on which she elected discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial and a properly constituted DD Form 214.  This document identifies
the reason and characterization of the discharge and Government regularity
in the discharge process is presumed.  The evidence of record shows the
applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200,
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In
connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant was
required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in
writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted
guilt to the stipulated or lesser included offenses under the UCMJ.  The
characterization of service for a chapter 10, AR 635-200 discharge is
normally UOTHC and that the applicant would have been aware of that prior
to requesting discharge.

4.  Nothing in the applicant's records indicates any physical or mental
problem which may have contributed to her current diagnosis.  It is noted
that the applicant declined a separation physical examination which would
have served as a benchmark to measure future problems.  The applicant's
entrance physical examination indicates no problems.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 24 July 1980; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 23 July 1983.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__fe____  __jrs___  __lvb___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations
prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the
statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records
of the individual concerned.



                                        Fred Eichorn
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004104989                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050210                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19800724                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C10                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A60.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]