RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000734


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson        |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Anderson              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |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 her character of service be changed from under
honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she was discharged after not being able to
complete training because she was raped.  The applicant continues she was
unable to maintain stable emotions and no one offered her support or
counseling.  She contends that her record was perfect prior to the assault,
that she was promoted just prior to the assault, and that she had no lost
time.

3.  The applicant further states, that after 31 years, she filed a claim
with the Veterans Administration for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
associated with her assault.  She further states the Veterans
Administration awarded her 100 percent service connected disability.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) in support of this
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 10 April 1973, the date of her separation.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 14 December 2004.

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.  The applicant’s records show she enlisted in the Regular Army for a
period of three years and entered active duty on 15 August 1972, at age 19.
 She completed basic training.  Records show she attended advanced
individual training on two occasions but there is no indication in the
available records that she completed this training.  The highest rank she
attained while serving on active duty was private/pay grade E-2.

4.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  The record does
not reveal a disciplinary history.

5.  On 27 March 1973, the unit commander notified the applicant that she
intended to initiate separation action on her under the provisions of
chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of
unsuitability (apathy, defective attitude, or inability to expend effort
constructively).  The unit commander cited the applicant’s emotional state
makes her a poor risk for military service.

6.  The unit commander also stated the applicant greeted Army life, job,
and associates with apathy and was unwilling to exert herself as the
reasons for taking the action.  The commander further stated the applicant
underwent a psychiatric evaluation prior at the time of her separation
proceedings.  The results of the applicant's psychiatric evaluation are not
in the available records.

7.  On 27 March 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects and of
the rights available to her.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant
waived her right to have her case considered by a board of officers, her
right to a personal appearance before a board of officers and her right to
consulting counsel.  She also elected not to submit a statement in her own
behalf.

8.  On 2 April 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation and directed that she receive a General Discharge Certificate.
On 10 April 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

9.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon her
separation confirms she completed 7 months and 26 days of active duty
service on the enlistment under review and that she held the rank of
private/pay grade
E-2 at the time.  This document also shows that during her active duty
tenure, she was awarded the National Defense Service Medal.

10.  There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the
Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within the 15-
year statute of limitations of that board.

11.  There is no evidence in the available records which show the applicant
was treated for injuries or mental health issues sustained as a result of a
sexual assault.

12.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the
applicant was evaluated by the Veterans Administration or that the Veterans
Administration awarded the applicant a disability rating.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time,
provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for
unsuitability based on inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, or
homosexual tendencies.  Members separated under these provisions could
receive either an honorable discharge or general discharge.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her general discharge should be upgraded to
an honorable discharge because she was unable to complete training because
she was raped.

2.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant
was a victim of rape, that she was experiencing mental health issues as a
result of an assault, or that her apathy towards continued military service
was the result of an assault.

3.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged
in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that the type
of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate
considering all of the evidence of record.

4.  Further, the applicant acknowledged in her separation processing
proceedings that she consulted with counsel, was advised of the effects of
the separation, and was advised of the rights available to her.




5.  Based on the applicant's overall apathetic attitude towards the
military and the fact she only served 7 months and 26 days of a three year
enlistment, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore,
there is insufficient basis to upgrade her general discharge to an
honorable discharge.

6.  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.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 April 1973; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 9 April 1976.  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

_CAK___  _ENA___  __JNS___  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.




                                             John N. Slone______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000734                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050915                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19730410                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200. . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |13-5 unsutability                       |
|BOARD DECISION          |Deny                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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