IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015737 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ____x___ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015737 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015737 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. 2. The applicant states: a. She enlisted in the Army to get away from an abusive relationship, but her husband found her while she was stationed at Fort McCllellen, Alabama; Fort Jackson, South Carolina; and Fort Eustis, Virginia. He beat her and threatened her life. She couldn’t take being battered anymore in a place she thought she would be safe, so she left. b. She was absent without leave (AWOL) so no one could find her and she could start her life over. She had to get away to save her life and her children. c. She apologizes to the military for the choice she made, but she didn’t know what else to do. She did not want to be a statistic of spousal abuse, so she had to get away. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * marriage license * letter of commendation * outstanding service certificates * certificate of retirement * spouse's death certificate 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 25 September 1981 for a period of 3 years. 3. Records show she was AWOL from 8 February 1982 to 28 February 1982. 4. She was AWOL again from 18 October 1982 to 29 July 1985. In July 1985, charges were preferred against her for the AWOL period. 5. A Fort Dix Personnel Control Facility Form 691A (Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet), dated 31 July 1985, states the applicant was AWOL because she was 4 1/2 months pregnant and was told by her doctor to stay off her feet. The officer she worked for kept her on her feet constantly, knowing of her condition and physical limitations profile. She went into labor, lost the baby, and was told she could not have any more children. 6. On 31 July 1985, she consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. She acknowledged that by submitting her request for discharge she was guilty of a charge against her that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. She indicated she understood she might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and given a discharge UOTHC, she might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, she might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and she might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. She acknowledged she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge UOTHC. She elected not to make a statement in her own behalf. 7. On 29 August 1985, the separation authority approved her voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. 8. On 2 October 1985, she was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. She completed a total of 1 year, 2 months, and 5 days of creditable active service with 1,035 days of lost time. Her service was characterized as UOTHC. 9. There is no evidence she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. 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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant now contends she was AWOL because she did not want to be a statistic of spousal abuse. However, in July 1985, she indicated she was AWOL because she was 4 1/2 months pregnant and the doctor told her to stay off her feet. The officer she worked for kept her on her feet and ignored her condition and physical limitations profile. She went into labor, lost the baby, and was told she wouldn’t be able to have any more children. 2. Her voluntary request for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. 3. Her brief record of service included 1,035 days of lost time. As a result, her record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015737 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015737 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2