IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  27 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019958 


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 correction of her military records by upgrading her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she experienced a sexual trauma while in the U.S. Army.  She also contends that she was undiagnosed and untreated for mental health issues.  She is requesting this upgrade based on having post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of her trauma while in the military service.  She relates that her first incident of sexual trauma occurred within 72 hours of her enlistment.  Within 30 days she went on sick call due to a vaginal discharge resulting from the sexual assault by a drill instructor.  She also states that she has on-going major depression and PTSD related to this sexual assault as well as having an unspecified and undiagnosed psychotic disorder.  She believes that had these service connected conditions been properly diagnosed when she was serving in the U.S. Army, she would have received an honorable characterization of service.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* A DD Form 214
* Two DA Forms 5181 (Screening Note of Acute Medical Care), dated             20 March and 1 April 1986
* A National Training Center (NTC) Form 1-41 (Unit Commander's Request for Psychiatric Evaluation), dated 24 August 1987
* A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter, dated 16 April 2013
* A VA Form 10-0431a (Consent for Clinical Treatment/Procedure), dated     20 November 2013 (6 pages)
* Information and Consent to Treatment, dated 19 December 2013 (1 page)
* Information and Consent to Treatment, dated 26 December 2013 (1 page)
* A VA Rating Decision, dated 26 February 2014 (4 pages)
* A VA letter, dated 27 February 2014 (3 pages)
* A VA Form 10-3203 (Consent for Use of Picture and/or Voice), dated         9 June 2014
* A VA Research Study, dated 9 June 2014 (12 pages)
* A VA letter to the applicant, dated 22 August 2014
* Progress Notes, Medical Record, dated 11 September 2014 (6 pages)
* VA Medical Records printed on 10 October 2014 (cover letter and 336 numbered pages)
* A VA Form 9 (Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, dated 22 October 2014 (2 pages)

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.  On 25 February 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed her initial training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina as an administrative specialist.  She was subsequently assigned for duty at Fort Irwin, California.

3.  The applicant accepted the following nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice:

	a.  15 January 1987: for absenting herself on 4 December 1987 without authority from her appointed place of duty and remained absent until 
29 December 1987.  She also failed to report to her appointed place of duty on 
19 and 21 November 1987.

	b.  24 February 1987: for failing to report for extra duty; for breaking restriction, and for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer who was in the execution of his office.

	c.  18 May 1987: for failing to go to her appointed place of duty.

	d.  30 July 1987: for wrongful use of marijuana as identified by a biochemical testing on 16 June 1987.

4.  On 13 August 1987, the applicant's company commander notified her that he was intending to take action to effect her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct due to her positive testing for marijuana use.  He also referred to her previous failures to report for duty and the resulting NJPs.  She was advised of her right to consult with legal counsel.

5.  On 13 August 1987, the applicant’s commander recommended separation from the service based on the misconduct discussed above.

6.  On 20 August 1987, the applicant consulted with counsel concerning her rights.  She elected to make a statement in her own behalf, but it is not contained in the available record.  She requested representation by counsel.

7.  On 26 August 1987, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  On 18 September 1987, the applicant was accordingly discharged.  She had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 28 days of creditable active duty service.

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

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.

   b.  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.

11.  A DA Form 5181, as provided by the applicant, dated 20 March and 1 April 1986, reports that she was examined in the 1st Brigade Troop Medical Clinic.  Her chief complaint concerned her right leg, left foot, and a vaginal discharge and pain.  Neither form indicates any of these conditions were the result of a traumatic event.

12.  A VA Rating Decision, as provided by the applicant, dated 26 February 2014, states that the VA denied her claim for service connection for PTSD.  In making this determination, the VA reviewed the applicant's military service medical treatment records dated from 23 December 1985 to 31 August 1987 and her official military personnel file dated from 27 December 1985 to 18 September 1987.  The VA denial was based on a lack of any diagnosis of PTSD or equivalent.  There were no service medical records showing any complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis of PTSD during her active military service.  Furthermore, the record showed she had undergone a mental health evaluation in conjunction with her separation from the military service in August 1987 with no findings of psychiatric disease or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her military records should be corrected by upgrading her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable because she suffered a traumatic sexual assault resulting in her having PTSD.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  Based on her record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  Therefore, she is not entitled to an upgrade of her discharge.

5.  Unfortunately, there is no available documentary evidence that convincingly shows the applicant was sexually assaulted while on active duty, or that any such experience led to her having PTSD.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20140019958





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019958



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1