IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004485 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 an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD). 2. The applicant states her military health records show her husband had beat her and she miscarried twins while stationed in Ft. Lewis, Washington. Her mind just could not handle the situation. She was an excellent Soldier and believes her reduction to E-1 was punishment enough. She was under extreme mental and physical stress and she could not continue serving following the trauma from losing her child. She just wanted to get away from everything. She is now retired, has led a good life, raised two boys, and would like to clean up the mistakes of her past. She has been a productive citizen and has worked hard. Now, after 36 years of the mental embarrassment of not being able to fulfill her obligation to the U.S. Army, she would like to get an upgrade to an honorable discharge. She was a model Soldier and completed all the tasks requested of her. Even at the point of discharge the members of her chain of command, Colonel T____ and General C____, wanted her to come back. 3. The applicant provides no additional supporting documentation. 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 November 1977, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 51B (Carpentry and Masonry Specialist). Her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows her duty assignment as a MOS 51A (Administrative Specialist). 3. The available medical records are minimal but include reports showing the applicant was having excessive vaginal bleeding in September 1978 following her miscarriage. The miscarriage was reported as having been the result of a beating she sustained from her husband. The record also includes two reports of orthopedic injuries for which no line of duty determinations or any explanation of the cause of the injuries are of record. 4. The applicant was advanced to private first class (PFC) on 30 September 1978 with a waiver of time in service. 5. On 9 November 1978, the applicant received a letter of appreciation from the Assistant Adjutant General, Personnel Affairs Division for going above and beyond what was expected, her dedication, and excellence of the service she provided. 6. The applicant was reported as absent without leave (AWOL) on 18 December 1978. She surrendered to civilian authorities on 26 January 1979 and was transferred to full military control on 30 January 1979. 7. Upon return to military control, court-martial charges were preferred for a 38 day period of AWOL. 8. On 31 January 1979, after consulting with counsel and being advised of her rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. She acknowledged that if she were found guilty of the charge(s), or lesser included charge, that she could be discharged with a punitive discharge and that, if the request was accepted, she could receive a UOTHC discharge and be furnished an UOTHC Discharge Certificate. She acknowledged that such a discharge would deprive her of many or all of her benefits as a veteran, and that she could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if she received a UOTHC discharge. She submitted a personal statement requesting a general discharge (GD) based on her duty performance and effort. 9. In a 1 February 1979 separation counseling interview, the applicant stated that she went AWOL due to personal reasons. What these reasons were is not indicated in the interview report. The applicant also submitted a personal statement outlining why she believed the quality of her service warranted a GD. 10. The discharge authority approved the discharge request and directed she receive a UOTHC and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 11. The applicant was discharged in the lowest enlisted grade on 8 March 1979 with 1 year, 2 months, and 24 days of total active service with 38 days of lost time. 12. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides 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 UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. Soldiers discharged UOTHC will be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade prior to separation. b. An HD is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. c. A GD is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an HD. d. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the separation, will be considered on the issue of characterization. As a general matter, characterization will be based upon a pattern of behavior other than an isolated incident. There are circumstances, however, in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for characterization. e. Due consideration will be given to the Soldier’s age, length of service, grade, aptitude, physical and mental conditions, and the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. At that time, the character of the discharge was commensurate with the offense for which she requested discharge. 2. The fact that she went AWOL for 38 days is a departure from the standards expected of a Soldier to receive a fully honorable characterization of service. 3. From the available records it is impossible to determine what, if any, action her command took regarding the beating her husband inflicted that resulted in her miscarriage. 4. At the time of the applicant's service, spousal abuse was not well investigated or acted upon. There is no evidence that her command offered her any support or counseling to assist her with coping with either the serious assault or her miscarriage of justice. 5. Prior to her going AWOL, the applicant had received an early advancement to PFC and a letter of appreciation for her excellent service. This shows the AWOL was a single isolated event that was out of character. 6. There are sufficient mitigating factors to show that, as a matter of justice, the applicant's service meets the standards for an upgrade to a general discharge. The evidence indicates the only basis for her reduction to the lowest enlisted grade was her characterization of service. Any documents issued as a result of this correction should show her rank/grade as PFC/E-3. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____X___ ____X___ ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by upgrading the applicant's characterization to general, under honorable conditions and issuing her a new DD Form 214 reflecting this correction and showing she held the rank/grade of PFC/E-3 with a date of rank of 30 September 1978. 2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the applicant's characterization of service to a fully honorable discharge. ___________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) AR20150004485 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004485 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1