PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           5 August 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999014710

	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.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  In effect the applicant requests physical disability retirement or separation.

3.  The applicant states that she had a bipolar manic episode, documented by the information that she submits, which should have warranted a medical discharge instead of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.   

4.  The applicant submitted a copy of a recent letter to a member of congress in which she stated that while working as a medical records technician at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, she became manic and just simply refused to work, that she knew she was manic at that time because she had similar symptoms.  She submits copies of documents dating from 1964 until just before her enlistment in the Army, documenting her problems.

5.  In a 27 November 1964 medical report, a psychiatrist indicated that the applicant, then 12 years old, had been referred because of problems in her school, gang related, which involved drugs, shoplifting, and sex, and that she was deathly afraid of the boys in her gang.  In an interview conducted with the applicant three days later, a medical doctor diagnosed the applicant as having an adjustment reaction of childhood, behavior disorder. 

6.  A 27 December 1970 medical report indicates that she was admitted to St Luke’s Methodist Hospital in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, because of vertigo and a headache of approximately three to four weeks.  Her condition was diagnosed as anxiety-depression with hyperventilation.

7.  A 28 January 1971 referral revealed that the applicant had been seen because of marital problems and severe depression.  The applicant at that time said she had an uncontrollable, wild temper, complained of shortness of breath, and of constantly being tired.

8.  In a 29 September 1972 letter to a recruiting NCO, a Reserve major, who was also the juvenile court coordinator for the Juvenile Court of Linn County, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, stated that the applicant was well known to his office since 1964 because of conditions in her home, that she had appeared before the court as a dependent and neglected child.  She was committed to the Iowa School for Girls, and listed as uncontrolled at that time, solely because of her need for a closed, structured program.  She did not have a criminal record.  He stated that the applicant had matured greatly and recommended her for enlistment in the Army.
In a 6 November 1972 letter an official in the department of social services also recommended her enlistment, stating that the applicant had been adjudicated delinquent because of running away and refusing to attend school.  She was discharged from the custody of the department of social services on                  28 July 1970.

9.  A 13 November 1972 report of medical examination shows that the applicant was qualified for enlistment with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 2 1.  In the report of medical history she furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that she was in very good health, stating that she had given birth to a child in 1970, and had appendicitis in 1972.

10.  In a 13 December 1972 statement, the recruiting official in evaluating the applicant for enlistment, noted that when the applicant was a child, both her parents were alcoholic, that she was put into a training school for girls in order to receive guidance and obtain a structured home life, and that one occasion she was released to her brother’s home, which had four small children.  She was returned to the training school, put in a second foster home, and then released to her parents.  She experienced a bad marriage, was divorced on                          17 October 1972, and both her and her daughter lived with her parents, who no longer had a drinking problem.  In order for her to enlist, her parents adopted her daughter and the family was now very close and extremely patriotic.  

11.  The applicant entered on active duty on 9 January 1973, completed basic training, and was assigned to Fort Sam Houston, Texas in May 1973 for training as a medical records specialist. 

12.  A 13 April 1973 medical report indicates that the applicant had a weight gain of 35 pounds in the past month, that her hair was falling out, she had recent acne, and had no periods for the past four months.  

13.  On 9 August 1973 the applicant submitted a request for a name change, indicating that she had married on 18 July 1973.

14.  An 11 August 1973 medical report shows that she was three months pregnant. 

15.  The applicant was AWOL from 30 August 1973 to 27 September 1973 and received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.

16.  She was AWOL again from 4 October 1973 until her apprehension in San Antonio on 16 January 1974.

17.   On 28 January 1974 her commanding officer recommended that the applicant be arraigned and tried before a special court-martial authorized to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.

18.  On 5 February 1974 the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She stated that she was guilty of the charge against her, which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and that under no circumstances did she desire further rehabilitation, and that she had no desire to perform further military service.  She stated that she understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that she might receive.  She stated that her attitude towards the Army was apathetic and one of indifference.  She submitted a statement in which she said that family pressures compelled her to go AWOL, and that a general discharge was a substantial punishment for her actions; that an discharge under other than honorable conditions would result in serious injury and stress to her family, the loss of numerous benefits, unmistakable social stigma, limiting her opportunities for employment.  She stated that the aforementioned stresses still existed.

19.  Both her company commander and her battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request, and also recommended that she be given a general discharge; however, her brigade commander recommended that she be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

20.  On 11 February 1974 the applicant was examined for a possible hypothroidism.  She had symptoms of weakness, fatigue, cold intolerance, metrorrhagia, and reported a weight gain of 60 pounds in the last year.  All those findings, in addition to itching and dry skin along with loss of hair was confirmed.  The examining physician, however, diagnosed her condition as euthyroid (having a normal functioning thyroid gland).

21.  In a 20 February 1974 report of medical examination, the applicant was qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 2 3 1.  The examining physician noted the applicant’s aforementioned physical problems.  In the report of medical history she furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that her health was not too good.  She noted that she had been treated for epilepsy and was taking medication for that condition, that she was pregnant, and that she had diabetes, among her other problems. 

22.  On 20 March 1974 the separation authority approved her request and directed that she be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  She was discharged at Fort Sam Houston on 22 March 1974.  She had 10 months and     4 days of service and 133 days of lost time.

23.  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.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
24.  Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, she must be unable to perform the duties of her office, grade, rank or rating.

25.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-2b(1), provides that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

26.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-2b (2), as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, her continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that she was unable to perform her duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation,
rendered the member unfit.

27.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 1-2, provides that a member who is charged with an offense for which she could be dismissed or given a punitive discharge may not be referred for, or continue, disability processing.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  She was on active duty from 9 January 1973 to 22 March 1974.  Service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.  At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically fit for retention or appropriate separation.  Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for reasons other than physical disability.  

2.  The medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of her separation.  She has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary.  Furthermore, her continued performance of duty raised a presumption of fitness which she has not overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness or injury concomitant with his separation.

3.  The applicant could not have been referred for physically disability processing had she been determined unfit, because of the nature of the offense for which she was charged.  Nonetheless, she did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  There is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

4.  The action by the Army in discharging the applicant for the good of the service was, and is correct.  Her voluntary request for separation to avoid trial by court-martial was in conformance with applicable regulation and there is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  Nonetheless, this is an individual whose medical and sociological problems almost ensured a recipe for failure upon her enlistment in the Army.  Notwithstanding the recommendations made, she should not have been enlisted.  Apparently, both her immediate commander and her battalion commander recognized this, and her physical problems at the time, i.e., weight gain, hair loss, etc., and recommended that she be given a general discharge.  This Board agrees with their recommendations, and consequently, in all fairness to the applicant, her discharge under other than honorable conditions should be upgraded to a general discharge. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was discharged on               22 March 1974 under honorable conditions. 

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__mdm__  __aao___  ___ewl__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014710	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990805	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 108.00		
2. 110.00		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.