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]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004125C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the narrative reason for her separation be changed. The applicant states, in effect, that a military member raped her in her unit while in the field. In view of the facts of this case, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s record to show she was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010215C070208
The applicant requests that her discharge be upgraded. On 10 February 1982 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of her discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that the Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010104
The applicant provides a psychiatric evaluation, discharge summary, and DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for...
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 | CY1995 | 9511136C070209
APPLICANT STATES: She was discharged through administrative channels, and the Army Discharge Review Board agrees that if her condition had been properly diagnosed, she would have received a physical disability retirement or separation. That official stated that the applicant had received extensive mental health care during her active duty service, and that her difficulties were attributed to adjustment disorders and various combinations of personality features and personality disorder, that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021156
On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012141
Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050018078
In her request for discharge, the applicant also indicated that she understood that by requesting discharge, she was admitting guilt to the charges against her, or of a lesser included offense(s), that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. On 8 July 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The record gives no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079133C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00300
Although the mental health records are not available for review (only limited entries in the main service medical record), the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative summary dated June 28, 2002 provides the most complete psychiatric summary available in the case file while she was on active duty. Had the Physical Evaluation Board concluded that service aggravated her condition, rating deductions for existing prior to service symptoms and for non-compensable personality...