IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        19 FEBRUARY 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080014424 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the reason and authority for her discharge and her Separation Program Number (SPN) be changed. 

2.  The applicant essentially states that she reported sergeant (SGT) R_____ for sexual assault and harassment against her to another sergeant, a chaplain at Dewitt Army Hospital at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and the company sergeant/ Women's Barracks, and was advised to defend herself.  She also states that she fought physically and verbally with SGT R_____ inside the medical laboratory during working hours with coworkers present, and was given days off away from the laboratory.  She further claims that she turned in a collection of letters written by SGT R_____ to a hospital chaplain, and was discharged from the Army within 30 days of SGT R_____'s arrest on 30 March 1965.  She also contends that a worker's compensation attorney from the Oakland Unified School District used her military medical and psychiatric records and her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) against her, and that she has lost income because of her inability to gain a security clearance due to mental illness.  

3.  The applicant provides a letter, dated 16 April 2008, from a clinical psychologist from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, California in support of this application.  Although the applicant essentially stated that she provided a DVA claim from the Los Angeles Regional Center, this claim was not received with her application. 


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's military records show that she enlisted in the Women's Army Corps on 17 February 1964.  She completed basic training at Fort McClellan, Alabama, then advanced individual training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas and Valley Forge General Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania and was awarded military occupational specialty 931.1668 (Medical Laboratory Specialist).  She was then reassigned to Fort Belvoir, Virginia and assigned to the Medical Company, DeWitt Army Hospital.  

3.  On 13 April 1965, the applicant's commanding officer recommended that she be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge for Inaptitude or Unsuitability).  She also stated, in effect, that during the applicant's in-processing, she was informed by the company first sergeant that the applicant had requested permission to make an appointment with the Mental Health Clinic (MHC) because she felt she was becoming a "habitual liar" and possibly a schizophrenic, and that she strongly felt that she needed to discuss her problems with a psychiatrist.  The applicant's commanding officer also opined, in pertinent part, that the applicant was incredibly naïve and lacked appropriate insight into her diverse and highly complex problems, and that she had demonstrated a consistent pattern of manipulative behavior as an expedient means to achieve her own ends.  She further recommended that the applicant receive an honorable discharge. 

4.  On 15 April 1965, the applicant acknowledged in a statement that she had been notified by her commander that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 and that she was entitled to a hearing before a board of officers and to waive the aforementioned privilege and submit written statements in her own behalf.  She also acknowledged that she had been counseled and advised of the basis for the action recommended, furnished a copy of her commanding officer's report and copies of statements submitted to support the recommendation for discharge, and all names of prospective witnesses to appear or to submit a statement that would be used against her.  Additionally, she acknowledged that military counsel who, if reasonably available should be a lawyer, had been made available and that she was notified of her right to employ civilian counsel at no expense to the United States Government if so desired by her.  She elected not to accept counsel or request that her case be heard by a board of officers, and elected not to submit statements in her own behalf.  She confirmed that she personally indicated her desires, and that she voluntarily signed this statement of her own free will and had retained a copy.  

5.  In a statement, dated 19 April 1965, an Army captain, presumably a psychiatrist, essentially stated that he and the applicant had numerous counseling sessions together, and that many facets of her personality had been explored and discussed at some length, but that the most striking thing about her personality was her extreme naivety concerning herself and others.  He also stated that the applicant had been severely handicapped by an unwholesome upbringing and had not been able to accept the values displayed at home, and as a girl would pretend her environment was other than what is was.  He further stated that to keep from assuming those values, the applicant had become religiously scrupulous in her outlook on life and displayed a totally unrealistic and inadequate adjustment of an adult role.  Additionally, he stated that the applicant's habit of pretending had become well-entrenched and that this was exhibited both at the verbal level and in her actions involving others.  He continued by stating that it was difficult to imagine one could be so naïve, but that it was true, and that the applicant's world was the world of a child, where unpleasantries were wished away and all people were motivated by good.  Further, he stated that the applicant's work habits at Dewitt Army Hospital had been excellent, but that she had been unable to culture friendships with her peers and could not adjust to their ways of thinking, and was constantly being "shocked" by their conversations, with those conversations being quite normal among young women from every walk of life.  He also opined that the applicant was a lonely and unhappy individual, and that this would not change without a good deal of psychiatric counseling.  Also, he bluntly stated that the applicant was a misfit, and that it was the considered opinion of his office that she was unable to adjust to her present assignment, and was decidedly not a candidate for service life.  

6.  On 26 April 1965, the proper separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, and directed that she be given an honorable discharge.  Orders, dated 28 April 1965, discharged the applicant on 30 April 1965, and show that the reason for her discharge was character and behavior disorders.  Item 11c (Reason and Authority) of her 
DD Form 214 essentially shows that she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, and was assigned an SPN of 264 (character and behavior disorder). 

7.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  The applicant provided a letter, dated 16 April 2008, from a clinical psychologist from the DVA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, California.  This letter essentially stated that the applicant has received treatment for symptoms including trauma-related intrusive thoughts and nightmares, hyper-vigilance, and difficulty with concentration in the present which interfere with her daily and interpersonal functioning.  This letter also stated that the applicant successfully completed a 12-week, comprehensive psychotherapy program to treat sexual trauma from 5 February 2008 to 23 April 2008.  Additionally, this letter stated that the applicant's symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are subsequent to sexual harassment and trauma that occurred while serving in the U.S. Army in 1964 and 1965.  It continued by essentially stating, in pertinent part, that the applicant described an ongoing environment that was uncomfortable and threatening to her, and provided a couple of examples.  The most traumatic of these examples for the applicant were reports of sexual harassment from a direct supervisor at Fort [Belvoir], Virginia in which the applicant stated that she received repeated unwanted sexual attention from SGT R_____, her supervisor, in the form of uninvited sexual comments, touching and hugging, as well as being cornered in the workplace at night while on duty by herself as well as in front of other workers.  Additionally, it stated that the applicant reported instances when SGT R_____ watched her in the shower and climbed into her bed at night, and that SGT R_____ continued after the applicant tried to communicate to her that she did not want the attention, and that she was physically threatened.  It also indicated that SGT R_____ told her not to say anything to anyone, and that the circumstances escalated to a point where the applicant physically fought with SGT R_____.  Further, it stated that the applicant remembers being pulled off of SGT R_____ and was sent home for 2 days due to the incident.  Also, it stated that the applicant requested a transfer or change in work assignment, but that it was not granted and she was instructed to return to her same duties, and began having trouble sleeping and experienced symptoms of anxiety.  Additionally, it stated that the applicant continues to have difficulty with depression, nightmares and intrusive thoughts about traumatic experiences, as well as some avoidance of relationships and hyper-vigilance when she does participate in social interactions.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.  An SPN of 264 was the appropriate SPN assigned to Soldiers discharged for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders.

10.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  This regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the reason and authority for her discharge and her SPN should be changed. 

2.  The applicant's contention that she turned in a collection of letters written by SGT R_____ to a hospital chaplain was noted.  However, she did not provide any evidence to support this claim.

3.  The applicant's contention that SGT R_____ was arrested on 30 March 1965 was also noted; however, the applicant also failed to provide any evidence to support this contention.  

4.  The evidence provided by the applicant, in the form of a letter a clinical psychologist from the DVA Long Beach Healthcare System, was carefully considered.  However, the issues and contentions essentially presented by the applicant to this clinical psychologist are not supported by any evidence in her military records.  

5.  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.

6. The applicant's contention that her narrative reason for separation and SPN code are incorrect was considered, but not found to have any merit.  The applicant's narrative reason for separation and SPN code are based on her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 due to character and behavior disorders, and based upon the evidence in her military records, it appears that she was equitably discharged for the appropriate reasons.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting relief to the applicant in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ___X_____  ___X_____  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.




      _______ _ XXX  _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080014424



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080014424



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1