MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  1 September 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999015073

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Theodore G. Heartley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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:  Removal of her bar to reenlistment and correction of her records to show that she was medically discharged.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was a victim of sexual harrassment; that she was told if she cooperated, she could advance her career; and that during her military service and at the time of separation, she was sick and her chain of command did not offer any assistance.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and entered active duty on 12 September 1985 under the delayed entry program.

She successfully completed her initial training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina in November 1985.  She was assigned to duties as a food service specialist in military occupation specialty, 94B, at Fort Hood, Texas on 15 February 1986.

On 24 June 1986, she was formally counseled for substandard duty performance including disrespect to a NCO; being too slow; lacking initiative; inefficiency; and being incompatible with her peers.

On 9 July 1986, the Commanding General, Fort Hood, a major general, imposed a general officer letter of reprimand (GOLOR) against her for driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content that exceeded the Army legal limit of .10 percent.

On 18 August 1986, she was formally counseled by her first sergeant for violating company policy by having 25-caliber ammunition and a 5-inch hunting knife in her barracks room.

DA Form 2173, statement of medical examination and duty status, indicated that at 0200 hours on 31 August 1986, she hit her head against a hand rail in a fall on the stairs while returning to her billets.  The report indicated, in pertinent part, that she stated that at the time of the accident, she had consumed 3 to 4 beers, however, her blood alcohol test revealed 
.325 percent or the equivalent of 18 to 21 drinks.  The report found that her accident was not in the line of duty due to her own misconduct.

On 17 September 1986, non-judicial punishment (NJP) by Article 15, UCMJ, was imposed against her for driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  Her punishment included reduction to private (PVT E-1) suspended for 180 days, forfeiture of $319.00 per month for 2 months suspended 
60 days and extra duty for 30 days.  

On 1 October 1986, her chain of command imposed a bar to reenlistment against her for her NJP by Article 15 and her unsatisfactory duty performance.

On 4 October 1986, the suspended portion of her punishment by NJP was vacated due to a second charge of driving under the influence of alcohol.

On 18 November 1986, she requested early separation under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, Chapter 16 based on her locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  In her request, she indicated that she was aware that she would be separated before the normal expiration of her term of service for her own convenience; that she would have to repay the unearned portion of a enlistment or selective reenlistment bonus she may have received; and that she would not be permitted to reenlist at a later date.

AR 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.  Incident to the request the member must state that he or she understands that recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus is required and that later reenlistment is not permitted.

On 24 November 1986, her unit commander reviewed her bar to reenlistment and determined that it should remain in effect.

On 17 December 1986, the separation authority approved her request for discharge.

A report of medical history and report of medical examination was not available in her records.

Her DD Form 214, separation document, indicated that she was separated on 6 January 1987 in accordance with provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 
16, locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  She had completed 1 year, 
3 months and 25 days of creditable service characterized as honorable.

There was no evidence in her records of a complaint of sexual harassment during her military service. 

There was nothing in her records indicating that she had an illness or medical condition for which she was denied medical treatment.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his or her continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he or she was unable to perform his or 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.

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 applicant’s records indicated that the circumstances leading to her locally imposed bar to reenlistment were related to her substandard duty performance and, in part, to her abuse of alcohol.  A subsequent review of her bar to reenlistment by her unit commander determined that her duty performance warranted continuation of the bar and her request for discharge was based on her belief that she could not overcome this bar to reenlistment. Therefore, the Board finds no basis to remove the bar to reenlistment from her records.

2.  There was nothing in her records indicating that an illness or medical condition for which she sought treatment was denied her at any time during her military service and that such illness or medical condition rendered her physically unfit and qualified her for processing through medical channels rather than administrative separation processing.  She was presumed physically fit at the time of her separation.

3.  Also, there was nothing in her records to indicate that her military service downfall was related to sexual harassment or that she had ever filed a complaint of sexual harassment.

4.  Her administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

6.  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

___SK___  ___JA__  ___KW___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999015073	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990901	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19870106	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	BAR TO REENLISTMENT	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110	
2.	144	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.