BOARD DATE:	  3 May 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100025886 


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, an upgrade of her undesirable discharge (UD) for entitlement to burial privileges.  

2.  She states, in effect, she never received medical treatment before she was separated.  She had regained part of her memory and is now able to face her past.  She was inducted in 1969 and discharged in 1971.  While stationed at the William Beaumont General Hospital she was kidnapped and left in the mountains by a sergeant on base because she wouldn't have sex with him.  She has learned that her lack of treatment created 90 percent of her difficulties.  She is not writing for benefits, but for burial privileges.  

3.  She provides:

* Picture of herself in uniform
* Two Certificates of Achievement
* Six 2007 Certificates of Completion
* Standard Form 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records)
* Letter from the Social Security Administration

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 she enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 31 July 1969, for 3 years.  She completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91E (Dental Specialist).  

3.  She accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for the following:

* 3 December 1969 - for disobeying a lawful command
* 12 February 1970 - for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 22 January to 4 February 1970
* 26 August 1970 - for being disrespectful in language towards her superior noncommissioned officer

4.  On 15 October 1970, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared by the Commander, WAC (Women's Army Corps) Company, William Beaumont General Hospital.  The applicant was charged with one specification of breaking quarters arrest on 17 October 1970 and one specification of being AWOL from 17 to 23 October 1970.

5.  On 28 October 1970, she was convicted by summary court-martial.  On the same day, she was sentenced to 45 days of hard labor and a forfeiture of $80.00 pay per month for 1 month.  The sentence was approved and ordered duly executed on 28 October 1970.

6.  A Report of Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 28 October 1970, shows she was diagnosed with a mixed personality disorder, chronic, moderate, manifested by inappropriate behavior, tendency to isolate and inability to deal with feelings.  Her impairment was marked and administratively unsuitable for further military service, no in the line of duty, and existed prior to service.  The evaluating psychiatrist stated the applicant did not want treatment and it did not appear that she could adjust to the service.  She was told she could be discharged for   personality disorder and this was acceptable to her.  It was recommended she be discharged to duty for immediate separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability).  
7.  On 28 October 1970, the applicant's unit commander recommended the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with an UD.  The unit commander stated the recommendation was based on the applicant's inability to adjust to military service, manifested by her contemptuous attitude toward superiors, failure to pay just debts, failure to comply with written and oral directives and orders.  

8.  On 28 October 1970, after consulting with counsel, she acknowledged the proposed action to separate her for unfitness, Army Regulation 635-212.  She acknowledged she could be issued a general or an UD and the results of the issuance of such a discharge.  She waived her rights and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

9.  On 29 October 1970, the applicant troop commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation with the issuance of an UD.

10.  On 29 October 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed the issuance of an UD Certificate.

11.  She was accordingly discharged in pay grade E-1 on 29 October 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  She was credited with completing 1 year, 2 months, and 14 days of active service and 15 days of lost time.

12.  She provided a picture alleged to be herself in her Army uniform.  She also provided several certificates attesting to her achievements and completion of promotions under the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Service and Howie the Harp Advocate Center in 2004 and 2007.

13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory Soldier.  An UD was normally considered appropriate for individuals separated by reason of unfitness.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), then in effect, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty 

for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record shows she underwent a psychiatric evaluation and diagnosed with a mixed personality disorder.  She stated she did not want treatment and the evaluating psychiatrist stated the applicant couldn't adjust to the service.  He recommended her separation for unfitness.  After consulting with counsel, she acknowledged the proposed separation action for unfitness.  She waived her rights and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  She also acknowledged the effects of the issuance or a general or an UD.

2.  She has provided insufficient evidence or argument to show her discharge should be upgraded and her military records contain no matter upon which an upgrade should be granted.  Without evidence to the contrary, it appears her administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  
3.  Her desire to have her UD upgraded so that she can qualify for burial benefits is acknowledged.  However, the ABCMR does not grant relief solely for the purpose of an applicant qualifying for burial, medical, and/or other benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting her the requested relief.

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.



      _______ _ x  _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20100025886





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100025886



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1