MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           16 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044151

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Martha E. Schuler		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she served during a very difficult period of service; that she was sexually harassed and abused both physically and mentally - to include being raped; and that she continues to suffer the effect of the mental and physical abuse.

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

On 30 September 1968, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years, continuing in her present duty assignment and military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B Medical Specialist.  At the time of reenlistment, she had attained the temporary rank of specialist/E-4 and was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey.

On 2 November 1968, the applicant reported to Valley Forge, Pennsylvania for advance training as a clinical specialist.

On 26 April 1969, the applicant departed for an overseas assignment to the United States Army Pacific Command, Okinawa.

On 3 July 1970, the applicant was promoted to the rank of sergeant/E-5.

On 25 November 1970, the applicant departed Okinawa enroute to the United States.  On 2 January 1971, the applicant was assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

On 30 January 1971, the applicant was married.

On 14 February 1971, the applicant departed her unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and remained absent until 31 March 1971.

On 1 April 1971, the applicant was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  On 13 April 1971, the applicant departed her unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until she was apprehended by civil authorities on 3 October 1973.  She was returned to military authorities on the same day.

On 15 October 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for the two periods of AWOL.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction in rank to specialist/E-4, a forfeiture of $206.00 pay for 2 months, and a 30-day restriction to her area of assignment.

On 9 October 1973, the applicant requested discharge from the Army as soon as possible under the provisions of Section II, Chapter 8, Army Regulation 635-200 because of marriage.  The unit commander recommended approval of the discharge because the applicant had completed 18 months of her current period of enlistment, had incurred no service obligation through schooling or promotion, and had no other derogatory information against her.

On 16 October 1973, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation with a GD.  Accordingly, on 23 October 1973, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 3 years, 3 months, and 25 days of creditable service and accruing 951 days of lost time.

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

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 8 of that regulation, in effect at the time, established the policy and procedures, and provided the authority for discharge of enlisted women because of marriage, pregnancy, or parenthood.  An enlisted woman could request discharge by reason of marriage and commanders would approve such request provided the applicant met the following requirements:
(a)  Served at least 18 months on her current enlistment.  (b)  Completed all obligated periods of service incurred through schooling or promotion as required by AR 600-200.  (c)  Served at least 6 months in the overseas command if application is submitted while serving overseas or subsequent to departure from home station enroute overseas.

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.  The Board acknowledges that the applicant served during a very stressful time; however, the Board found no evidence of sexual harassment or rape either before the two periods of AWOL or incident to them.  Nor did the Board find any evidence in the available record that the applicant had been treated by any medical staff for sexual harassment, rape, or any other type of abuse.  

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights.  The applicant has two periods of lost time totaling 951 days.  Therefore, the Board concluded that the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service and that a GD was appropriate.

3.  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.

4.  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

__wtm___  __jea___  __mes___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044151	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001116	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19731023	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 8	
DISCHARGE REASON	A22.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	144.9307	
2.	144.9331	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.