RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        10 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050016021


      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. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis L. Greenway            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine M. Taylor             |     |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 the narrative reason for her separation be
corrected from disability, not in line of duty, to disability, in line of
duty.

2.  The applicant states that while she was absent without leave (AWOL)
when she was injured, her duty section knew that she was involved in an
abusive relationship, was having a problem pregnancy, was experiencing
stress due to the death of her grandfather, was broke, and had her vehicle
repossessed, amongst other issues.  Her superiors visited her at her home
and promised to pick her up for work, but never returned.  She did not
receive any help from the military to overcome her problems.

3.  The applicant provides medical records and documents pertaining to a
formal line of duty investigation conducted on her injury.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on
18 July 2000.  She was married and had dependent children at that time.
She was awarded the military occupational specialty of traffic management
coordinator.

2.  On 24 October 2001, the applicant’s duty status changed from present
for duty to AWOL.

3.  On 7 December 2001, while AWOL, the applicant was hospitalized for C6-7
anterior sublux, C-7 TP fracture, and intrauterine pregnancy (8 weeks).
The applicant initially reported that she fell backwards in a chair, but
later stated that her spouse abused her which resulted in her injuries.

4.  On 6 February 2002, a formal line of duty investigation was completed
on the applicant’s injuries, injuries which resulted in her paralysis from
the neck down.  The investigating officer (IO) stated that the applicant
reported that because her husband wasn’t working, she “continued to write
bad checks which subsequently landed her in jail.  Not knowing how to deal
with that situation she then went AWOL.”  The IO found that her injuries
were incurred not in line of duty - not due to own misconduct.  That
finding was based on the applicant being AWOL at the time of the injury.



5.  On 8 March 2002, the applicant was provided a copy of the formal line
of duty investigation and invited to make a statement on her own behalf.

6.  The applicant responded on 25 March 2002.  In that response she stated
that she was not mentally sound at the inception of her unauthorized
absence.  She argued that even though the regulation governing line of duty
investigations require a determination of mental soundness, this was not
accomplished by the IO.  She explained that a month before her unauthorized
absence, she had a miscarriage which her physician stated was caused by
stress.  That stress was due to her extreme personal problems.  Her
miscarriage only added to her feelings of extreme depression and stress.
She was then evicted from her house and had to move further away.  This
caused problems in her reporting for duty because her car had been
repossessed because of severe financial difficulties she was having.  She
continued by explaining that her husband was an
ex-convict, an alcoholic and extremely abusive, both physically and
verbally.  Because of her financial difficulties, she could not afford a
babysitter, yet was afraid to leave her children with her husband because
she feared for their safety if left in his care.  The cumulative stress
caused by all these events led to her mental instability at the inception
of her unauthorized absence.

7.  On 2 August 2002, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) (now the
Human Resources Command), approved the investigating officer’s finding of
not in line of duty - not due to own misconduct.  The applicant was
notified of that decision and advised of her appellate rights.

8.  The applicant submitted an appeal of the not in line of duty - not due
to own misconduct finding.  In that appeal she reiterated the problems she
was experiencing prior to her going AWOL and her command’s knowledge of her
whereabouts when she was AWOL.  She added that her command failed to
provide her any assistance during that time.  She also stated that if she
had not been “Government property” she would have left the area.

9.  After considering the applicant’s appeal, the PERSCOM approved the not
in line of duty - not due to own misconduct finding.  As a result, the
applicant was honorably discharged due to disability, not in line of duty.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-1, Army Casualty and Memorial Affairs and Line
of Duty Investigations, paragraph 41-7 states, in pertinent part, that any
injury or disease incurred while the member is AWOL will be handled as not
in line of


duty.  A finding of AWOL requires that it be shown that the soldier either
voluntarily left his or her unit or organization or other place of duty
without proper authority, or that the soldier was absent from a scheduled
duty or restriction at the time of injury.  This paragraph also specifies
that the immediate commander’s finding of a member’s duty status at the
time of the injury is final.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant does not deny she was AWOL when she was injured.
Disabilities which are incurred while AWOL are specifically mentioned as
being considered not in line of duty – not due to own misconduct.

2.  The applicant contends that the abundance of personal problems she was
experiencing at the time she departed AWOL and the lack of assistance by
her command should be sufficiently mitigating to warrant changing her not
in line of duty – due to own misconduct finding to a line of duty finding.


3.  In this regard, the applicant did not submit any documentation to show
that her command was aware of her problems and did not offer any
assistance, and she did not submit any documentation to show that she was
actually experiencing the problems she listed.

4.  If the applicant’s superiors knew of her whereabouts when she was AWOL
and knew she had problems, it is reasonable to presume that they would have
either had her arrested for being AWOL or referred her to the Chaplain,
Army Emergency Relief, or other appropriate office or agency.

5.  The applicant’s personal problems did not constitute an excuse for
going AWOL.  The Army provides many social, religious, and financial
programs to assist Soldiers in need.  However, the Soldier must inform her
superiors of her problems and of her needs.  There is no evidence that the
applicant informed her superiors of her problems or requested assistance.

6.  During the processing of the applicant’s formal line of duty
investigation, she contended that she was not mentally sound when she went
AWOL.  The fact that a Soldier is experiencing personal problems does not
indicate that the Soldier is not mentally sound.




7.  As such, the Board does not accept the applicant’s contentions as
sufficiently mitigating to warrant reversing a proper finding of not in
line of duty – not due to own misconduct.  Since there is insuffient basis
to change the line of duty finding, there is no basis for changing the
narrative reason for her discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___clg___  ___jbg___  ___pmt__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.





                                  ___________Curtis L. Greenway____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016221                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060810                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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