MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035518

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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:  That her general discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she experienced passiveness and dysfunction while in the military that caused some headaches.  The military blamed it on her attitude instead of trying to find out what was really wrong.  Therefore, her disability has worsened.  She provides a copy of her discharge packet as supporting evidence.

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

After having had prior service, she reenlisted in the Regular Army on 30 May 1979 for 4 years.  She completed advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).

On 8 January 1981, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for assault with a dangerous weapon, to wit:  a broken glass bottle.  Her punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3, suspended, and a forfeiture of $100.00 pay for 1 month.  On               25 February 1981, the suspended reduction was vacated.

On 24 June 1981, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for assault by striking another soldier in the face with open hands and closed fists.  Her punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, suspended; a forfeiture of $200.00 pay for 2 months, suspended; and 30 days extra duty, suspended.  

On 26 June 1982, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for absenting herself from her assigned place of duty, to wit:  Psychiatric Day Hospital, and for disobeying a lawful order.  Her punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3; a forfeiture of $171.00 pay for 1 month, suspended; 14 days extra duty; and 14 days restriction.

On 19 July 1982, the applicant received a bar to reenlistment.  Her commander had cited her Article 15s, one letter of reprimand and eight formal counselings.  

On 13 September 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13-4c, for unsuitability.  

On 14 September 1982, the applicant waived consideration of her case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  

The applicant’s commander forwarded his recommendation through channels.  He noted that she had been extensively counseled by her chain of command and that she had been referred for assistance to the community mental health activity, which further referred her to the Psychiatric Day Hospital.  She had been expelled from that rehabilitative program because she refused to participate fully in the therapy offered.  

The applicant completed a separation physical examination.  The reverse side of the SF Form 88, Report of Medical Examination is not available.  However, the battalion commander had noted in his endorsement to the recommendation that she had been psychiatrically cleared for disciplinary action.  Administrative separation had been recommended in every case where she had been medically and psychologically evaluated.

On 27 September 1982, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the soldier be issued a general discharge.

On 4 October 1982, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability -- apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively.  She had completed 6 years, 3 months and 18 days of creditable active service and had no lost time for that period of service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time, chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating an individual for unsuitability when it was clearly established that it was unlikely that he or she would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  Paragraph 13-4c provided for the separation of a soldier for apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively.  The presence of a physical or mental disease or defect-producing impairment of function insufficient to warrant separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 and related regulations was no bar to discharge for unsuitability.

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his employment on active duty. 

The applicant’s Senator was informed by letter that her service medical records were not available and that she would need to provide her service medical records and any other medical data that she has.  The applicant did not respond to this letter.

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.  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.

2.  The applicant’s service medical records are not available and she has not provided any other medical records such as VA records or civilian treatment records.  Without such records, the Board cannot even determine what is medically wrong with her currently.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

4.  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

__eb____  __jhk___  __bje___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035518	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000613	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19821004	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 13 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.