MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          15 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044014 

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 essence, that item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected by removing unsatisfactory performance. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that her DD Form 214 shows “unsatisfactory performance.”  She had no alcohol abuse, no unauthorized absences, no nonjudicial punishments (NJP) and no court-martial actions which would validate her receiving this reason for discharge.  She only had medical problems that were “chronic.”  She also states that she experienced an irregular pay problem and that she was given a “T3 profile with a (RTC) then she was fired from the Army.”  

COUNSEL STATES:  That the applicant maintains that her reason for discharge has been unjustly characterized as being due to unsatisfactory performance.  In effect, the applicant served as a medical specialist and that she completed 
3 years of honorable service without incident.  She completed her medical specialist training in a satisfactory manner.  She also received recognition in the form of a letter of appreciation for her efforts in the trauma unit and several certificates of achievements, and an Army Achievement Medal for outstanding performance of duty.

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

That prior to the period of service under review, she completed an honorable period of inactive service in the Air Force Reserve from July 1976-July 1979, 
with a 4 month period of active duty for initial training.  She was trained as an Air Passenger Specialist.

On 29 October 1986, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years in pay grade E-2 and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Specialist).  She completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas.

While assigned to Fort Bliss, on 31 March 1988, she signed an extension of her enlistment for 38 months so that she could participate in the Bonus Extension and Retraining Program in MOS 91C (Practical Nurse).

In October and November 1988, she was evaluated for hydadinitis suprativa.  
On 3 March 1989, she complained of bursitis in the left shoulder and “chondromalacia patellae tendentious.”  On 10 April 1989, she received a temporary profile due to bursitis in the left shoulder and patellae tendentious.  There is no further evidence available concerning these medical conditions or any other “chronic” medical problems.
In January 1989, she began training in MOS 91C.  Between March and August 1989, she was counseled for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer, for insubordination, for being late on numerous occasions, for refusing to give/receive shots, for missing a command-referred psychology appointment, for poor duty performance, for failure to repair, for failure to follow instructions and for leaving her ward without the proper authorization.

On 5 October 1989, NJP under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, was imposed against her for failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 25 September 1989.  On the very same day, she appealed the NJP action and the appeal was denied.  The proceedings were determined to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulation and the punishment imposed was not unjust or disproportionate to the offense committed.  Her punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 and forfeiture of $242.00 pay (suspended for 90 days).  On 4 October 1989, she failed to report to her place of duty.  On 11 October 1989, the suspended portion of the punishment to forfeit $242.00 pay was vacated.  

On 3 November 1989, her commander officially notified her that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge (HD).  She was informed that the basis for the contemplated separation action was her continued poor duty performance, lack of dependability, and disregard for military authority.  She was also informed of the rights available to her.  On 6 November 1989, she consulted with legal counsel and she requested a personal appearance before an administrative separation board. 

On 13 December 1989, her commander notified her that he was disqualifying her from receiving the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL) for her period of service between 5 August 1986-4 August 1989, due to her bar to reenlistment on
25 October 1989 (not contained in the available records) and because of the pending chapter actions against her.  She acknowledge notification and submitted a rebuttal stating that her misconduct offenses occurred outside of the window which entitled her to the GCMDL.  On an unknown date, she authenticated a document in which she acknowledged that she understood that the “disqualification stands.”

On 22 December 1989, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would meet on 11 January 1970 to determine whether she should be discharged from the service for unsatisfactory performance before the expiration of her term of service.  On 8 January 1990, a letter of amendment notified the applicant to appear before the board of officers on 14 May 1990. 

On 12 January 1990, her Service School Academic Evaluation Report shows that between 16 January-18 December 1989, she failed to achieve course standards.  She received a satisfactory rating in written communications, oral communications and contribution to workgroup.  She received an unsatisfactory rating in leadership skills.  Her ability to do student research was not rated.  
Item 15 (Has the Student Demonstrated Academic Potential for Selection to Higher Level Schooling/Training) is marked “No.”  Item 16 (Comments) states that the applicant successfully completed the didactic phase of the Practical Nurse Course, but she was unable to apply the theory learned in the class to clinical practice.  She did not demonstrate leadership ability as evidenced by her lack of responsibility for her personal actions or conduct and that she was relieved from the Practical Nurse Course for nonacademic reasons.

On 14 May 1990, the applicant appeared before the board of officers with counsel.  During the board proceedings, the chain of command stated that the applicant had the intellectual ability to learn the concepts but that she was unable to apply the concepts to patient care.  During the orthopedic clinical phase of training, she would not follow orders and she required very close supervision.  An incident occurred where she failed to do a heart/lung assessment on a patient and she then lied by stating that she had.  She failed her academic tests twice. She was chronically late, continuously reported to her ward late claiming that it was due to personal reasons.  She would also leave the ward without authority.  Further, the board was informed that she failed patient safety.  She was therefore removed from the nursing program for safety reasons.  Additionally, the board was informed that her integrity was questionable.  She had a temporary profile due to bursitis in the left shoulder and patellae tendentious and when her profile expired, she continued to excuse herself from physical training.  Later she had a profile as a result of being pregnant.

On an unknown date, the board recommended that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance with a HD.  The board concluded that the applicant failed to successfully complete Phase II of the 91C course.  She had demonstrated a lack of potential for increased positions of responsibility and leadership, which were both in the technical scope of her duties and the general scope of soldiering.  Further, she was unable to practically apply skills.  She was unwilling to accept authority and to be accountable for her actions.  She also lacked integrity. 

On 4 June 1990, the approval authority directed that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance with an HD.  

On 6 July 1990, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with a HD.  She had completed 3 years, 8 months and 8 days of creditable active military service on the enlistment under review and she had 2 years, 9 months and 6 days of prior inactive service.  She was awarded the Army Achievement Medal and the Army Service Ribbon.

The available records do not contain pay records or that she had any pay problems.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  Army policy states that a general discharge, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an honorable discharge may be granted.

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 this requirement.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  In fact, she appeared before a board of officers, with counsel, to plead her case in person. 

3.  Both the characterization of service and the narrative reason for separation are commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

4.  The applicant was separated for unsatisfactory performance because she failed to complete the Practical Nurse Course.  She lacked the potential to assume increased positions of responsibility and leadership.  She was unable to apply the skills that she had learned.  She was unwilling to accept authority and her integrity was questionable. 

5.  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.
6. The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for a physical disability separation.

7.  She has presented no evidence that shows that she was incorrectly paid while on active duty.

8.  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

__fe____  __mkp___  __mhm __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044014	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 13  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.