RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 NOVEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002499


      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             |
|     |Ms. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |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, in effect, that her records be corrected by
upgrading her discharge.

2.  The applicant states she was the victim of sexual harassment while
stationed in Germany.  She was one of two women in the barracks and was
continually sexually harassed.  Due to her nerves she left the base and did
not return resulting in her undesirable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 12 July 1976.  The application submitted in this case is dated
25 January 2005.

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 initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 September
1971, and was honorably discharged on 9 September 1974, upon completion of
her required service.

4.  On 6 June 1975, she reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3
years.

5.  On 9 February 1976, the applicant was granted leave from 15 March 1976
to 24 March 1976.  However the applicant did not return from leave.

6.  On 10 May 1976, the applicant’s commander preferred court-martial
charges against her for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 25 March
1976 to
13 April 1976, and for disobeying a lawful order from a superior
commissioned officer to return to her overseas unit.



7.  On 18 May 1976, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service,
under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  She acknowledged that she was guilty of the charges against her,
and that she understood the effects of receiving an undesirable discharge.
The applicant submitted a statement in her own behalf in which she states
that she was assigned to a company in Augsburg, Germany which was in poor
physical condition and that most of the people in the company were also.
She went to her company commander, the chaplain and mental hygiene for help
and no one seemed to think her problems were significant.  She began using
drugs as a means of relief, but found herself in a worse mental state.  She
was transferred to Bad Toelz, Germany, which was a worse situation.  She
was constantly harassed by the men and barely escaped being assaulted by
four GI’s one night. She decided to go home and get some help, but even in
the states she could not find any one to help her.  She could not put
herself through anymore of Germany, so she went AWOL, and finally turned
herself in to the Fort Jackson, South Carolina Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Center.

8.  On 18 May 1976, the applicant’s commander recommended approval of the
applicant’s request.

9.  On 12 July 1976, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority
for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation
provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or
offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge
could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request
for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
error which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2.  The applicant voluntarily requested separation under Army Regulation
635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-
martial.



3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that the
applicant’s AWOL time was the result of harassment or her working
conditions, nor is there evidence that she sought help from her chain of
command.

5.  The fact that the applicant completed a 3 years initial enlistment
indicates that she was capable of fully honorable service.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 12 July 1976; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
11 July 1979.  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

__SK ___  __JM  ___  __RD ___  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.




                                  ______Stanley Kelley_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002499                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051115                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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