RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002902


      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. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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 records be corrected to show she was
retired for physical disability with a 100 percent disability rating for
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) – sexual trauma; that her rank of
Specialist Five, E-5 be restored and she be promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-
6; that she receive all due back pay and allowances; and that her
educational benefits be restored.

2.  The applicant states she lived in a small town and wanted to get out of
her "one horse town."  She concluded the military would meet her needs.
The Army recruiter asked her what she wanted to be and she told him, "a
photographer."  The recruiter told her "we can do that."  A month after she
turned 18 she signed a ream of papers and was in the Army.  At the end of
basic training, she learned she was not going to photography school like
she was promised but to medic training.  She did not want to be a medic but
was told that, if she did not have a signed contract, the Army would send
her where she was needed.  She did well in medic training and was assigned
to Fitzsimons General Hospital, Denver, CO.

3.  The applicant states she was quite naïve but she started to get the
hang of the Army and was promoted to Specialist Five (SP5), E-5 in less
than 2 years.  That all changed in October 1963 when she became a victim of
date rape.  Sometime during the night a man she had dated a few times made
his way up the fire escape and entered her room.  There were no locks on
the doors.  He raped her.  She did not have a chance to fight and she did
not yell because she was scared.  When he finally left, she just lay there
bewildered.  She finally got up and took a shower.  She did not tell
anyone.  She realized years later that was because, as a child, she had
been told, "nothing goes outside the family."

4.  The applicant states at some point she realized she was pregnant.  She
kept that a secret and was basically in denial.  She started drinking and
taking diet pills to combat her deepening depression.  What she went
through between October 1963 and May 1964 was only the beginning of the
emotional damage and disgrace the Army put her through.  Her commander
called her in and stated she had noticed the applicant was gaining weight.
Her commander asked her if she might be pregnant.  She took a physical on 7
May 1964.  She received no counseling.  The physical confirmed she was
pregnant and four days later she was discharged.  The Army took back
everything she had been issued, even her dog tags.  She felt the horrible
pain of being "drummed out of the Army."

5.  The applicant states she found a place off post but did not get along
with her roommate.  She finally got the courage to go to the commanding
officer of the Soldier who raped her, but the Soldier denied the baby was
his.  Furthermore, he stated she had been with a lot of men, which was not
true.  It was very clear nothing was going to come of her accusations.  She
had the baby but was told the baby could not be adopted in Colorado and
would have to go to her state of residency, Kentucky.  She drove back to
Kentucky.  She had car trouble on the way but her aunt came to get her.

6.  The applicant states the next few years were spent in an alcohol and
drug haze.  She finally stopped drinking and taking drugs.  In 1981, she
was allowed to enlist in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) but not without a
zing from the Army again.  She had to obtain a copy of her termination of
parental rights.  She lost her civilian job and moved to Florida, but by
the time she got settled she was not eligible to enlist in the USAR.  She
was treated very badly by the Army and she wants to be made whole again.

7.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United
States Report of Transfer or Discharge); a Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA) Progress Note dated 19 August 2004; a DVA letter dated 2 September
2004; her Specialist Four (SP4) promotion orders; her SP5 promotion orders;
a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ); and a
termination of parental rights order filed 4 August 1967.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 11 May 1964.  The application submitted in this case is dated
16 February 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 was born on 5 June 1943.  She enlisted in the Army on 10
July 1961.  On 10 July 1961, she signed a statement acknowledging that all
promises made to her were contained in items 11, 13, or 37 of the DD Form 4
(Enlistment Record – Armed Forces of the United States).  Item 11 of her DD
Form 4 indicated her enlistment grade was Recruit, E-1.  Item 13 indicated
her initial assignment was, "None."  Item 37 (Remarks) contained the entry,
"Marriage Certificate Attached."
4.  The applicant completed basic training and advanced individual training
and was awarded military occupational specialty 911.10 (Medical
Specialist).  She was assigned to the Women's Army Corps (WAC) Detachment,
Fitzsimons General Hospital, Denver, CO on 30 December 1961.

5.  The applicant's DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows she was given a
"fair" efficiency rating rendered for the period 30 December 1961 to 27 May
1962 due to lack of initiative and disinterested attitude towards her work.

6.  The applicant was promoted to SP4 on 5 November 1962 and to SP5 on
  1 September 1963.

7.  On 20 February 1964, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for unlawfully
introducing and having in her possession alcoholic beverages in the WAC
Company barracks.  Her punishment was a reduction to SP4 and a forfeiture
of $75.00.

8.  On 29 April 1964, the applicant was examined and found to be pregnant
with an estimated confinement date of July 1964.

9.  On 30 April 1964, the applicant's commander requested she be discharged
under the provisions of section III, Army Regulation 635-210.  The
commander noted the applicant had been counseled on numerous occasions
regarding poor room inspections and poorly done details.  The commander had
also received calls from her section regarding her tardiness in reporting
for duty.  In December 1963, she had been moved to the lower grade barracks
due to her failure to accomplish her assigned details and maintain a clean
and orderly room in the upper grade barracks.  In view of her poor conduct
record, the commander recommended she be given a general discharge.

10.  The commander's request was approved and the applicant was discharged,
with a general discharge and an under honorable conditions characterization
of service, on 11 May 1964 under the provisions of section II, Army
Regulation   635-210.

11.  On 27 July 1980, the applicant enlisted in the USAR for 2 years.  On 8
July 1982, she extended for 12 months.  On 14 May 1983, she requested
separation due to a work conflict and attending school full-time beginning
in September 1983.  On 27 July 1983, she was honorably discharged from the
USAR.

12.  The applicant provided a DVA Progress Note which indicates she was
seen on 19 April 2004 for an orientation session to familiarize her with
the nature of PTSD care.
13.  Army Regulation 635-210 (Discharge of Enlisted Personnel Marriage,
Pregnancy, or Parenthood), in effect at the time, established policy and
set forth procedures for the discharge of enlisted women by reason of
marriage, pregnancy, or parenthood.  Section III stated discharge would be
effected at the earliest practicable date when it was determined by a
medical officer that an enlisted woman was pregnant.  The interval between
diagnosis and discharge would be held to a minimum.  For personnel
stationed with the United States discharge normally would be not later than
7 days after receipt of certified diagnosis.

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank or rating in
such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his/her employment on
active duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been carefully considered, and the
Board empathizes with the circumstances that led to her discharge in 1964.


2.  Governing regulations at the time required pregnant enlisted women to
be discharged immediately.  The applicant's pregnancy was confirmed on 29
April 1964; she was discharged on 11 May 1964, actually a few days later
than the     7 days normally required by the regulation.  It was policy at
the time for Soldiers being separated early to turn in Government-issued
items.  These actions may seem cruel to the applicant, but she was treated
no differently from other Soldiers separated for the same or similar
reasons.

3.  The Board understands the applicant's anger at the Army for not taking
action against the Soldier who raped her.  However, the applicant did not
bring it to the Army's attention for more than 6 months.  Unfortunately,
the Army mirrored society's attitude at the time and she was not believed,
a common occurrence especially when she did not "push" the issue (as a more
assertive woman might do today).

4.  Regrettably, it appears the applicant's upbringing caused her to
channel her feelings into conduct that was unacceptable to the Army,
resulting in a reduction in rank and conduct that led to a recommendation
she receive a general discharge.  It appears she was diagnosed with PTSD
after she was discharged. In addition, she was discharged because she was
pregnant, not because she could not perform her duties.  Therefore, a
medical separation would not have been appropriate.
5.  Education benefits fall under the purview of the DVA and cannot be
restored by any action of the Department of Defense.

6.  Regrettably, there is no evidence of Government error in this case and
therefore there is no basis for granting the relief requested.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 11 May 1964; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         10 May 1964.  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

__jtm___  __jbg___  __jrm___  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 T Meixell______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002902                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051020                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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