RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004934


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Merlinda M. Darby             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 general discharge be
upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was discharged as a direct
result of an abusive husband.  His conduct was uncontrollable and she was
very fearful there was no way out of the relationship at the time.  She was
asked on several occasions by the first sergeant to divorce him.  Her
husband had broke security lines and entered Germany using his ID
(Identification) Card.  He was then placed in jail.  She believed the
commander was fearful that she would become a death statistic on his watch.
 At the same time, she was going through this nightmare, there was a
warrant officer who killed his wife.  She loved serving her country and
still today wishes she could have remained in.  She is very saddened by
this discharge.

3.  She also states that if she had agreed to send her husband home, she
was told that she would be able to complete her service but was released
instead under misconduct (not hers).  It was also brought to her attention,
at the time of discharge, she was responsible for an AAFES (Army and Air
Force Exchange Service) bill.  She immediately requested that CID (Criminal
Investigation Division) investigate the matter and proved that it was not
her and that she had no knowledge of this infraction.  She apologizes for
taking so long to address this issue but did not understand the damage it
had caused.  She loved a man who obviously did not love her and she
suffered a long time.  She is now paying not only for the physical abuse
suffered by his hands but, it appears he has won once again by taking her
military career status away from her too.

4.  She states that the military could not understand abuse and the fear
that so many women suffered then.  It appears that some of these issues are
just now becoming evident in these last few years.

5.  In an additional statement, she states, in effect, that she was a
faithful Soldier for years. Her forced departure from the service was in
the best interest of the Army; however, as an abused wife, she can say that
the agencies we have now were not available then.  She thinks about the
past every day.  It haunts her and she has considered the situation "My
(Her) Silent Hell."  This man (her husband) made his way back into the
country of Germany on just an ID Card.  Abuse was a norm and it was kept
hush; and normally, the wife took the brunt of the actions. In all cases,
the woman is left with trying to make excuses on the job to justify how the
physical abuse occurred.  Her career ended horribly and she would now like
to have it back.
6.  She often wishes that she had done something about it but was too
embarrassed and angry.  She states that the AAFES account was forged by her
husband who used his present wife to sign her name.  This debt was
forgiven.  She verified that and let them know that after the decision was
made.

7.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of her
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 6 September 1988, the date of her discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 17 January 2006 but was received for
processing on 31 March 2006.

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 military records show she enlisted in the Regular Army
on 9 September 1986, as a personnel information specialist, in military
occupational specialty (MOS) 75F, in pay grade E-4, for 3 years, with an
established expiration of term of service (ETS) of 8 September 1989, with
prior military service.

4.  From 3 February to 2 June 1988, the applicant received nine counseling
statements.  She was counseled for failing to report to her appointed place
of duty on three occasions, indebtedness on two occasions, disobeying a
lawful order, being absent without authority on two occasions, and for
unsatisfactory duty performance.  She was advised that recurring problems
of this nature could result in administrative action.

5.  On 29 April 1988, the applicant was referred to ADAPCP (Alcohol & Drug
Abuse Prevention & Control Program) due to an alcohol related family
dispute.  She had a BAT (blood alcohol test) reading of 1.23.



6.  On 26 May 1988, the Wuerzburg FACMT (Family Advocacy Case Management
Team) received a report of spouse abuse involving the applicant and her
husband.  The FACMT conducted an investigation of the report and determined
it to be substantiated spouse abuse.  A case manager was assigned to
schedule and monitor treatment and follow-up as determined by the FACMT.
The applicant was command directed to report for counseling at SWS (Social
Work Services) as scheduled.

7.  On 22 June 1988, the applicant’s commander notified her that she was
being recommended for separation from the service under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for misconduct, unsatisfactory
performance.  She was informed that the least favorable characterization of
service he could receive was a general discharge, under honorable
conditions.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s numerous acts
of indiscipline, substandard duty performance, numerous counseling
sessions, and domestic disturbance.

8.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived her rights and
elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

9.  On 1 July 1988, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate
the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, prior to her
expiration of term of service (ETS).

10.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 15 July 1988.
Her mental status evaluation revealed a fully oriented alert individual,
whose behavior was normal.  Her mood or affect was unremarkable, thinking
process was clear, her thought content was normal, and her memory was good.
 She possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in
proceedings.

11.  On 31 August 1988, the separation authority approved the
recommendation for the applicant’s discharge and directed that she be
furnished a general discharge certificate.  The applicant was discharged on
6 September 1988, in the pay grade of E-4.  She had a total of 11 years,
3 months, and 9 days of creditable service.

12.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.



13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for
administrative discharges of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this
regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of Soldiers
due to their unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment
the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention would
have an adverse impact
on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member would be
a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation would
continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform
effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or
leadership, was unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of
unsatisfactory performance under this regulation would be characterized as
honorable or under honorable conditions.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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, 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’s discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in
accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of her
separation.

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation
were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  There is no
indication that the applicant’s request for discharge was made under
coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that her discharge was
unjust.  She also has not provided evidence sufficient to mitigate the
character of her discharge.

4.  The applicant alleges that she was discharged as a direct result of an
abusive husband, that his conduct was uncontrollable, and that she was
fearful that there was no way out of the relationship.  She mentioned that
her husband had broken security lines, reentered Germany using only his ID
Card, was put in jail, and had she agreed to send her husband home, she
would be able to complete her service, but was released for misconduct, not
hers.  She alleges that her forced departure from the military was in the
best interest of the Army.


5.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged based on
her numerous acts of indiscipline, substandard duty performance, numerous
counseling sessions, and domestic disturbance.  She was released for her
own misconduct and unsatisfactory performance and for failing to amend her
ways after she had been provided appropriate counseling.  She alleges that
the misconduct that led to her release was not hers; however, it was she
who was overall responsible for her own conduct and that of her family
members.

6.  It is noted that the Army does not condone any type of physical abuse
or tolerate any type of domestic disturbance within the Department.  During
the time of her service and prior to her discharge, contrary to her
assertions; there were several social agencies and programs available to
her for assistance in addition to the Chaplain, Office of the Judge
Advocate, Provost Marshal's Office, and her own chain of command.  The
applicant has failed to show that she attempted to seek assistance from
these organizations and individuals prior to her discharge.  It is also
noted that the applicant was prior service and should have been aware of
the appropriate actions to take to report such abuse.  As a Soldier, the
applicant was responsible for her own conduct at all times.

7.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s records, and the applicant has
provided none, to show that she applied for an upgrade of her discharge to
the ADRB within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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

9. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 6 September 1988; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 5 September 1991.  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

_MMD___  ___JCR _  _RDG___  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.




                                  _____Merlinda M. Darby______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004934                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061019                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19880906                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, chapter 13                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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