MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 July 1999      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023038

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Charles H. Loundermon		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L Powell		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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:  In effect, that her discharge be upgraded to honorable and that her original grade be restored.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she attempted to obtain medical attention because she “was ill with abdominal pain” but was ultimately “put out with a dishonorable (general) discharge.”  In support of her request she submits medical documents which she indicates confirm that a “Dr. Fernandez surgical[ly] removal of a 3 month fetus in the tube (right).”

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

She entered active duty on 16 November 1994 and was promoted to pay grade E-3 on 1 December 1995.

Her records note that beginning in November 1996 she was counseled regularly regarding her inability to be at her appointed place of duty.

In February 1997 she was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to obey a lawful order on three separate occasions in January 1997.  Her punishment included a suspended reduction to pay grade E-2, restriction and 
14 days of extra duty.

The suspension was vacated in April 1997, and the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-2, as a result of her rendering a false statement regarding a sexual encounter and a sexual harassment incident.

On 24 June 1997 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for patterns of misconduct.  The specific reason cited for his proposed action was the applicant’s failure to be at her appointed place of duty and insubordination.  He informed her that he was recommending that she be issued a general discharge.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation, consulted with counsel and waived her attendant rights.

A physical examination, conducted in May 1997, found the applicant medically qualified for separation.  The applicant, in her statement of medical history noted a variety of ailments but made no mention of any “abdominal pain” other than that she suffered from “frequent indigestion” and “frequent and painful urination since May 95.”

A mental status evaluation, conducted on 7 May 1997, found the applicant fully alert and oriented, her thought process clear and normal, and concluded there were no mental health problems which required disposition through medical channels.

The commander’s recommendation was approved and on 23 July 1997 the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-2 “under honorable conditions” and issued a general discharge certificate.  At the time of her separation she had completed 2 years, 8 months, and 8 days of active Federal service.

Subsequent to her separation, on 2 September 1997 the applicant was admitted to a civilian health facility with a diagnosis of “threatened abortion ectopic pregnancy.”  A pregnancy test conducted on 19 September 1997 indicated that she was between 2 and 3 weeks gestation.  A subsequent test, conducted on 
23 September 1997, indicated she was no longer pregnant.  None of the 1997 medical documents indicate that a “Dr. Fernandez” surgically removed a 3-month fetus from the applicant’s right tube.

In August 1998 the applicant was again admitted to a civilian health facility complaining of pain in her right side.  A pregnancy test, conducted on 7 August 1998, was negative.  The applicant’s attending physician, a Dr. Fernandez, ordered a pelvic ultrasound which revealed a “tiny calcified fibroid” in her lower uterus but an “otherwise negative pelvic ultrasound.”  The report noted that “by history, the patient has a negative pregnancy test and a previous ectopic pregnancy on the right.”

Army Regulation 635-200 prescribes the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted soldiers.  Chapter 14 states, in pertinent part, soldiers are subject to separation for patterns of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  Discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline includes conduct which violates the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.

Army Regulation 635-200 also notes that dishonorable and bad conduct discharges may only be given pursuant to an approved sentence of a court-martial while honorable and general discharges are considered administrative discharges.

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 administrative separation was conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations with no evidence of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant’s contention that she was seeking medical treatment for abdominal pain at the time of her separation, and that that somehow impacted on her reduction in grade and characterization of her service is without foundation.  Her separation physical examination and mental health evaluation make no mention of any “abdominal pain.”

3.  The medical documents submitted in support of her request document a September 1997 ectopic pregnancy but not that a Dr. Fernandez surgically removed a “three month fetus” from her right tube.  The 1998 medical documents appear to be totally unrelated to her July 1997 separation and the Board notes had no bearing to her service, reduction to pay grade E-2, nor her separation processing.

4.  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.

5.  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

___chl__  __slp______  _clg____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023038	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990729	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 110.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.