RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070007642 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Ms. Deyon D. Battle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Linda D. Simmons Chairperson Mr. Scott W. Faught Member Mr. Roland S. Venable Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that her locally imposed bar to reenlistment be lifted so that she may join the Regular Army or the Reserves. This, in fact, constitutes correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow reenlistment. 2. The applicant states that she was sexually, mentally, and emotionally harassed while she was on her second tour of duty. She states that she enlisted in the Army at age 17 to serve her country and to leave a small town in Oregon. She states that she was promoted through the ranks in 13 Months and that in August 1984, she was the battalion Soldier of the Month. She states that her nightmare began when she fell in love with a man that was HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) positive. She states that she understood the narrow-minded people that were in her chain of command; however she did not believe that they would be so prejudiced. She states that she was written up for being late for formation, which was fair; however, her chain of command was particularly hard on her. She states that she was constantly being called names and that bad jokes were being made by upper echelon. She states that she was constantly reminded of her husband's debilitating disease. She states that she did some stupid things; however, her abilities as a female Soldier always outshined the decisions that she made as a youth. 3. The applicant states that she had some trouble with her finance pay and bounced some checks accidentally, which led to her downward spiral. She states that she was constantly sexually harassed and that she was even asked out several times by her first company commander. She states that the final straw was when she had another Soldier in her room and went to take a shower. She states that the other Soldier was in her room for about 30 minutes and that the next day the drug sniffing dogs came through her room. She states that she had left a soda can on her nightstand and that at some point, she threw it out. She states that she cannot remember if the can was finger printed; however, she was implicated and she was immediately chaptered out of the Army. She states that she had no knowledge that the other Soldier was using hashish in her room. She states that she was never busted for drugs or offered any sort of counseling. She concludes by stating that she was never given the chance to save her Army career; therefore, she tucked her tail and left in shame. She states that she is a physically fit 42-year old female who does not use drugs or alcohol; that she is at peace with herself; and that she was harassed beyond what a normal person could tolerate while she was in the Army. She states that if given the chance, she would do the right thing and try to help in anyway possible. 4. The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of her applications. 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. After completing 1 year, 7 months, and 11 days of net active service in the Army and being honorably discharged on 16 May 1985, due to pregnancy, the applicant enlisted in the Army in Nashville, Tennessee, on 16 January 1986, for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-4. She had been awarded a personnel administrative specialist military occupational specialty (MOS) and continued to perform duties in her previously assigned MOS. 3. On 8 April 1987, the applicant was counseled for failure to maintain a clean room. According to the General Counseling Form (DA Form 4856) on 4 April 1987 another Soldier inspected her room TA-50 (Table of Allowances) and took care of her deficiencies; however, on 8 April 1987, the refrigerator in which she shared with another Solider was dirty. She was told that she would maintain high standards in her room, otherwise she would be recommended for punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 4. On 20 April 1987, the applicant was counseled for failure to go to formation. She was informed that actions of this type would not be tolerated; that all formations were important; and that if actions of this type continued, administrative action would be taken against her. 5. The applicant was counseled on 6 May 1987, for failure to go to formation. According to the DA Form 4856, the applicant stated that her alarm clock did not go off. However, the counseling official noted that her roommate was up and dressed for formation. She was told that her behavior regarding what she should or must do, which included cleaning and organizing her room, was below standards. She was also informed that her actions would no longer be tolerated and that she was being recommended for action under the UCMJ. 6. Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 25 May 1987, for failure to obey a lawful order by wrongfully having a male visitor in her room after designated visiting hours. Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $ 212.00, restriction for 14 days, and extra duty for 14 days. 7. On 1 October 1987, the applicant's Commanding Officer (CO) was "again" notified that she was delinquent in regard to an account that was opened on 14 January 1987. The CO was informed that under the terms of her agreement, the applicant was obligated to pay $50.00 per month. The CO was further informed that the applicant had ample opportunity to address her account; that if payment was made in full, delinquency on the account would be waived; and that, if so desired, an extension could be made to the term of the contract. 8. On 16 October 1987, the applicant was counseled for failure to go to physical training formation, which was the first formation of the day. She was told that even though she contacted another Soldier and informed him of her tardiness, she was not being seen in a favorable light and that she did not need to bring attention to herself. The applicant was told that her work performance was above average; however, she must make the mandatory formations which she failed to do 9. In a letter dated 16 October 1987, the CO was notified that the applicant issued a check in the amount of $120.00 that was dishonored. The CO was informed that she had been contacted and afforded opportunities to make payment on the check; however, she failed to do so. 10. On 23 October 1987, the applicant was counseled regarding her outstanding debt. During the counseling she was told that she was 9 months behind in her payments of $50.00 per month on a contractual agreement. She was informed that she was obligated to honor any contractual obligations in which she entered; that there were numerous ways in which her CO could deal with this situation; that there were agencies available to assist her if she was unable to manage her financial affairs; and that this counseling was to determine which avenue was appropriate. 11. On 28 October 1987, the applicant’s former senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) forwarded a memorandum to her CO stating that since her attachment, her performance ranged from marginal to poor. The Senior NCO stated that she was frequently late for formations and often had to be given the same instructions several times. He stated that the applicant was placed in charge of leaves and finance appointments and that shortly after her departure, a visit was made by a Department of the Army auditing team and a determination was made that every mistake that could be made by her, was made. The CO was informed that the applicant had taken a number of unclassified, but sensitive documents home to work on and she made no effort to return the documents. The CO was told that the company commander had received a number of telephone calls and two letters regarding dishonored checks written by the applicant on a closed account. 12. On 18 November 1987, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for a bar to reenlistment and her CO cited her numerous counselings, which included her poor performance; delinquency on debt payments; nonpayment of debts; failure to keep her room up to standards; and punishment under the UCMJ as a basis for the bar to reenlistment. 13. The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 4 December 1987. 14. On 14 December 1987, the applicant was counseled and notified that her recommended bar to reenlistment had been approved. She was told that the bar to reenlistment would be reviewed after 6 months to determine whether her performance and conduct warranted lifting of the bar. The applicant was told that her mission was to work towards that goal and that if at any time within 12 months she believed she should not be able to overcome the bar, she may request separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16. 15. In a Personnel Action dated 11 March 1988, the applicant requested that she be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-5, prior to the expiration of her term of service. She stated that her request was based on the bar to reenlistment that was approved on 4 December 1987. She stated that she did not believe that she would be able to overcome the bar to reenlist; that she understood that if her request was approved it would be for her own convenience; and that she would not be permitted to reenlist at a later date. 16. The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge and he directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, on 4 April 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. She was furnished an RE-4 code. 17. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change of her narrative reason for separation and separation authority within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 18. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations. Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied reenlistment and provides that Soldiers who receive DA imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge. Paragraph 16-8 provides that personnel will be notified of the separation by appropriate commanders and be provided the basis for the separation. Personnel discharged under these chapters will be assigned an RE code of RE-4. 19. An RE-4 code applies to persons with a non-waivable disqualification. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show 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. 2. The applicant's contentions have been noted. However, they are not supported by the evidence of record. There is no evidence that shows that she was sexually, emotionally, or mentally harassed while she was in the Army. The evidence of record shows that she was counseled on at least seven separate occasions and she had NJP imposed against her as a result of her acts of misconduct. She was barred from reenlistment and she later determined that she would be unable to overcome the bar. 3. Therefore, she voluntarily requested to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 625-200, paragraph 16-5 and she acknowledged and understood that she would not be permitted to reenlist at a later date. 4. The applicant's locally imposed bar to reenlistment resulted in the reason for her separation. Therefore, her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) appropriately shows her narrative reason for separation as locally imposed bar to reenlistment. 5. There was no error made in the narrative reason for separation or the RE-4 code that was assigned to the applicant at the time of her discharge. She was properly separated from the service as a result of her locally imposed bar to reenlistment and her records properly reflect this information. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __LDS__ __RSV__ __SWF__ 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. ___Linda D. Simmons___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070007642 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071025 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 1021 100.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2. 7 100.0600/BAR TO REENLISTMENT 3. 4 100.0300/RE CODE 4. 5. 6.