PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041360

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		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.  The applicant requests that she be paid separation pay.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was unjustly discharged for unsatisfactory performance that was the result of a medical condition that impaired her ability to serve and that the Army Discharge Review Board changed the authority and narrative reason for separation because her separation was inequitable.  However, she was not awarded any separation pay for her service.  She goes on to state that she had an exemplary record until she developed complications after the birth of her child and was misdiagnosed several times before surgery was performed on her to remove the adhesions in her abdomen.  She also states that she was experiencing abdominal pains at the time she failed her first two Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) and that she was given only 60  days after her surgery before she failed her third APFT.  She continues by stating that prior to this she had an average of 240 points on her APFT and she had an otherwise exemplary record of service.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 February 1989 and served through a series of continuous reenlistments.  She was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 February 1991.

5.  On 15 May 1995, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate her from the service for unsatisfactory performance based on her failure of the APFT on three separate occasions.  After consulting with counsel the applicant submitted a request for a conditional waiver in which she agreed to waive her right to appear before a separation board in return for a guarantee that she would receive an honorable discharge.  She also elected to submit a statement in her own behalf whereas she indicated that she had an emergency “C-Section” in September 1992 and began experiencing abdominal pains while running.  She had surgery in March 1995 to remove the adhesions to the scar tissue and failed her third APFT 60 days later.  She went on to state that prior to this she had always scored well on her APFT (240 or above), that she had been awarded the Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM), the Army Achievement Medal (AAM), a Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL), and numerous other Certificates of Achievement.  She also indicated that she had scored 200 points (maximum) on the promotion board, served as a volunteer Big Sister in the District of Columbia, and was president of the Enlisted Advisory Council.

6.  Her conditional waiver was approved and she was honorably discharged on 29 June 1995, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  She had served 6 years, 8 months, and 10 days of total active service and her awards include the JSAM, the AAM, the GCMDL, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Service Ribbon.

7.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 10 August 1999 requesting that the authority and narrative reason for her separation be changed.  After reviewing the applicant’s medical and personnel records, the ADRB determined that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that her medical problems at the time impaired her ability to pass the APFT and that given her otherwise exemplary record of service, her discharge for unsatisfactory service was inequitable.  The ADRB voted unanimously to change the authority and reason for her separation to Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, under Secretarial Authority.

8.  The applicant also applied to this Board requesting that her discharge be changed to a discharge by reason of physical disability (medical discharge).  She cited as the basis for her request at that time that she had been granted a 30% disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for sinuitis and was being re-evaluated for abdominal pains.  The Board opined, in effect, that the evidence of record as well as the evidence submitted by the applicant suggested that she was fit to perform her duties at the time of her discharge and unanimously voted to deny her application on 1 December 1999.

9.  Department of the Army Circular 635-94-1 outlines the eligibility criteria for separation pay formulas as authorized by the Department of Defense Instruction 1332.29 dated 20 June 1991 and other Headquarters, Department of the Army guidance resulting from Public Law 101-510, the National Defense Authorization Act.  The circular also illustrates the various types of separations that are either eligible or ineligible for separation pay.  It states, in pertinent part, that eligibility for separation pay for personnel separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to Secretarial Authority will be determined on a case by case basis.  Personnel may be awarded full, one-half, or no separation pay.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The ADRB has determined that the applicant’s medical condition impaired her ability to serve and given her record of otherwise exemplary service, her discharge for unsatisfactory service was inequitable.  Accordingly, the authority and narrative reason for separation were changed by that board to reflect separation under Secretarial Authority. 

2.  Accordingly, given the ADRB’s assessment that the applicant had an otherwise exemplary record of service, it would be in the interest at this time to grant her full separation pay for her service as provided for in the applicable regulation.

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

RECOMMENDATION:  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned is authorized full separation pay for her service up until the time of her discharge.

BOARD VOTE:  

___rds __  __rvo ___  ___be___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041360	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  291	128.0800/sep pay	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.