RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004982


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine 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 her general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that during the last several years she
has been treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and she was rated 100 percent disabled
because of the rape that occurred in 1966 while she was in the Army.  She
states that following the rape she received many Articles 15 and a general
court-martial and then she went absent without leave (AWOL).  She claims
the circumstances of the rape created PTSD immediately; however, the Army
did not acknowledge this but instead kept punishing her.  She also states
that if the rape had not occurred she would have had a good military
record.

3.  The applicant provides eight enclosures outlined in her letter, dated
27 March 2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 14 November 1967.  The application submitted in this case is
undated; however, the application was received in this office on 5 April
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 enlisted on 26 August 1964 for a period of 3 years.  She
successfully completed basic training and was awarded military occupational
specialty (MOS) 71A (clerk) and later awarded MOS 71B (clerk typist).

4.  On 28 December 1965, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for two specifications of failure to repair and being AWOL from
23 December 1965 to 25 December 1965.  Her punishment consisted of a
reduction to E-2, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

5.  On 10 January 1966, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for disobeying a lawful command.  Her punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay.

6.  On 11 January 1966, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for disobeying a lawful command on 7 January 1966.  Her
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

7.  On 11 January 1966, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for disobeying a lawful command on 10 January 1966.  Her
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

8.  A Criminal Investigation Division Report of Investigation, dated 31
August 1966, states that the applicant was raped by two or three Soldiers
on 13 August 1966 in New Mexico.

9.  On 19 October 1966, contrary to her plea, the applicant was convicted
by a summary court-martial of failing to obey a lawful order.  She was
sentenced to be reduced to E-2.  On 20 October 1966, the convening
authority approved the sentence.

10.  On 28 March 1967, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 15 November 1966 to 2 February 1967.  Her
punishment consisted of an oral reprimand and admonition, and a forfeiture
of pay.

11.  On 14 November 1967, the applicant was released from active duty with
a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for
expiration term of service.  She had completed 2 years, 11 months, and 28
days of creditable active service with 78 days lost due to AWOL.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 2, in effect at the time,
provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge or release from active duty
upon termination of enlistment, period of induction, and other periods of
active duty or active duty for training.  The regulation also states, in
pertinent part, that the evaluation of an individual’s service and conduct
will be based on his/her overall period of current service rather than any
disqualifying entries in his Enlisted Qualification Record during a
particular portion of such service.



13.  There is no indication in the available records that the applicant
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within
its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contentions
that following the rape she received many Articles 15, a general court-
martial, and then she went AWOL.  Records show the applicant received four
nonjudicial punishments prior to her rape, one for being AWOL, and she only
received one nonjudicial punishment following the rape.  Records also show
she was convicted by a summary court-martial, not a general court-martial,
subsequent to the rape.

2.  The DVA does not fall under the purview of this Board or the Department
of Defense.  The DVA, operating under its own policies and regulations,
assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.

3.  The applicant’s record of service included five nonjudicial
punishments, one summary court-martial conviction, and 78 days of lost
time.  As a result, her record of service did not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore,
the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant
an honorable discharge.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 14 November 1967; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 13
November 1970.  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

CG_____  __TR____  __PT____  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.




                                  ___Curtis Greenway____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004982                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061114                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19671114                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Expiration term of service              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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