RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 Jul 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017803


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine I Fields            |     |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 discharge under other than
honorable conditions (General) be upgraded to an honorable discharge; that
her pay grade be upgraded to pay grade E-3 and that the reason for
separation should be changed to “Disability, Aggravation involuntary”.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she did her part to clean up her
military records by removing the 23 page sexual harassment report, because
it was sickening, nauseating and grotesque.  She has a beautiful letter of
commendation, which for some reason was not included into her file.  She
wonders how it got lost.  She believes that “it’s time for the military to
do their part and rise above the childish behavior and remove the nit-
picky Article 15’s, like she removed the 23 page sexual harassment report.
She further states that her rank needs to be upgraded to a (Private First
Class) at least, Reverend at best, with Honorable Discharge clearly written
across the top of her certificate.  Finally she states that “God has not
given us the sprit of fear; but of power and of love and a sound mind.
This is the will of God, even your sanctification that you abstain from
fornication.  God has not called us into uncleanness, but unto holiness.
And that you study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work
with your own hands, as we commanded you”.

3.  The applicant provides two photographs of the applicant, a Certificate
of Baptism, her Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty (DD
Form 214), her Judgment of Divorce document, a Letter of Appreciation from
President George Bush, a Letter of Commendation from Colonel Robert S.
Snead, a Note of Appreciation from the First Lady Laura Bush, a Pray the
Vote Certificate, a Prayer Acknowledgement from the Office of the Prime
Minister, a Christmas acknowledgement from Pope Benedict XVI and a Thank
You Note from the Spiritual Housecleaning in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 31 December 1985.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 8 January 2007.

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 record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 17 February 1984.  She was trained and awarded
Military Occupational Specialty 31M (Multi-Channel Communications Equipment
Operator).  The highest grade attained was pay grade E-3. The applicant’s
record reveals no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service
warranting special recognition.

4.  On 9 October 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.
Her imposed punishment was 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

5.  On 12 December 1985, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent
without leave (AWOL) from 9 to 11 December 1985, for two specifications of
willfully disobeying a lawful order from her superior noncommissioned
officer, for the wrongful appropriation of gasoline at a value of $10.00,
and for breaking restriction.  Her imposed punishment was a reduction to
pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $167.00 pay, 14 days restriction and 14 days
extra duty.

6.  On 20 December 1985, the applicant accepted NJP for three
specifications of willfully disobeying a lawful order from her superior
commissioned officer and her superior noncommissioned officer.  Her imposed
punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $167.00 pay,
14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty.

7.  On 22 December 1985, the commander notified the applicant that she was
being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander’s
recommendation was based on the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance and
acts or patterns of misconduct.

8.  On the same day, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for
unsatisfactory performance, its effects and of the rights available to her.
 Subsequent to this counseling, she waived her right to have her case
considered by an administrative separation board and she elected not to
submit statements in her own behalf.  There is no evidence in her record of
sexual harassment nor is there any evidence of a 23 page report of sexual
harassment in her military record.

9.  On 26 December 1985, a medical examination and a mental status
evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.

10.  On 30 December 1985, the appropriate authority approved the
recommendation, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the
issuance of discharge under honorable conditions (General).  On 31 December
1985, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of
Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a
discharge under honorable conditions.  She had completed 1, year,
10 months and 15 days of creditable active service.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and
outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory
performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate
a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member
will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further
training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

12.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

14.  On 29 December 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant's petition to upgrade her discharge.

15.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute
allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion
requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens
that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on
the date of final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the
ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit
from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative
remedy is utilized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that she was sexually harassed and
therefore her discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge, that
her pay grade should also be upgraded to pay grade E-3 and that the reason
for separation should be changed to “Disability, Aggravation Involuntary”
were carefully considered and the evidence was found to be insufficient to
support her request. There is certainly no evidence in her record of her
being sexually harassed nor is there any evidence of a 23 page report of
sexual harassment in her military record.  Therefore, given the
circumstances in this case and that there is no evidence in the available
record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support any of her
allegations.  There are no bases for granting any of the applicant’s
requests.

2.  The evidence of record also reveals that the applicant had a record of
disciplinary infractions that ultimately led to her discharge.  Further,
her record reveals no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service
warranting special recognition.  Therefore, it is concluded that her
discharge under honorable conditions accurately reflects her overall record
of service.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s unit commander notified
her of the contemplated separation action and that she consulted with legal
counsel. It further shows that after being advised of the basis for the
contemplated separation action and its possible effects, she voluntarily
elected to waive her right to have her case considered by a board of
officers and she elected not to submit a rebuttal statement in her own
behalf.

4.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that all requirements
of law and regulation were met; the rights of the applicant were fully
protected throughout the separation process.

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  In view of the
foregoing and given the circumstances in this case there is no basis for
granting the applicant’s request.

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

7.  Records show the applicant exhausted her administrative remedies in
this case when her case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 29 December 1988.
As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice to this Board expired on 28 December 1991.  However,
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

___ENA__  ___SWF_  ___EIF__  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.




                                  __      Eric N. Andersen______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/07/03                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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