APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was unable to understand the proceedings as she was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) brought on after she was sexually assaulted by one of her superior officers.  The charges against her were false and a counteraction for her charges against the officer.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 August 1989.  She received a bar to reenlistment for non-payment of just debts on 1 April 1992 and was honorably discharged on 30 September 1992.  She then served in the U.S. Army Reserve. On 2 October 1994, she was ordered to active duty in the Active Guard/Reserve program.

Her Personnel Qualification Record, and hence her promotion and reduction history, is not available.

The court-martial charges and the discharge proceedings packet are not available.

On 10 July 1995, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.  She had completed 4 years, 1 month and 22 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

In attempting to locate a copy of the Chapter 10 separation packet, a member of this Board’s staff contacted the unit to which she was assigned at the time of her discharge.  The unit’s current logistics officer was assigned as the unit commander on the applicant’s last day of duty there.  Prior to his taking command, he had been briefed on her case.  The unit no longer has the Chapter 10 on file, but he remembers she was charged with wearing Sergeant E-5 rank on her collar when her actual rank was SPC E-4.  He also remembers that she had other problems while assigned to the unit, most notably dishonored checks.  He remembers she had accused an officer of raping her but the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigated and found no basis for the charge.

A copy of the CID investigation report was obtained.  It notes the actual charge was indecent assault and indecent language, that probable cause did exist to believe the officer did commit the offenses, and that he had been arrested by the local sheriff’s office, released on bond and was pending a court date.  However, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) name check came up negative with an arrest record for the officer.

The applicant had applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgraded discharge, but the case was administratively closed when she failed to respond to a travel panel notification.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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 the aforementioned requirement and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT 

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                           Loren G. Harrell       
					      Director