MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            22 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045377

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Conner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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, retroactive promotion to pay grade E-4.

APPLICANT STATES:  She should have been promoted to pay grade E-4 when she reached 26 months time in service.  She noted that she was denied the promotion because she did not have a current Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) when in fact she was on a profile from her previous command.  She states that she was harassed, given an Article 15 for failing to obey an order that she had no choice but to disobey.  She also states that she was depressed at the time and that her chain of command thought she was “faking sick” when she was actually having kidney failure.  She maintains she is entitled to the promotion because of harassment and discrimination by her chain of command.  In support of her request she submits copies of a 1999 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action, copies of a medical summation following her hospitalization in June and July 1999, and extracts from her service medical records.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's complete military records were not available to the Board.  Information contained herein was reconstructed from documents provided by the applicant and documents associated with her enlistment and extension on active duty:

She enlisted and entered active duty in pay grade E-1 on 25 April 1996 for a period of 4 years.  On 6 May 1998 she extended her 4 year enlistment for a period of 19 months in order to have sufficient service remaining to complete a “with dependents” overseas tour in Alaska.  At the time of her extension she was serving in pay grade E-3.

In April 1999 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to obey an order not to have contact with her spouse unless she was accompanied by an NCO escort from her chain of command.  Her punishment included reduction to pay grade E-2.  She did not present any matters in defense, mitigation, or extenuation and did not appeal the action.

Included with the applicant’s petition to the Board was a copy of a medical summary sheet indicating the applicant was seen at Community Mental Health Services on 16 March 1999 for “problems with marriage, health and depression.” The summary indicated the applicant had been in the Army for 3 years and in Alaska for 7 months.  A 23 March 1999 summation notes that the applicant was seen by a physician who noted the applicant “tends to present herself as a victim of misunderstanding…however, fails to accept responsibility for own wrong-doing.”  She reported being depressed all the time “yet unable/unwilling to 

explore alternative coping strategies.”  The evaluating physician also noted that the applicant had been repeatedly counseled for “disrespect, FTR [failure to repair], etc.”

In June 1999 the applicant was evacuated from Alaska to Madigan Army Medical Center for “evaluation of headache, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, night sweats and lymphadenopathy that began 2 months prior to transfer.”  Her medical summary sheet from her hospitalization indicates that “after researching the literature, it was felt that the patient had TINU Syndrome – anterior uvietis with interstitial nephritis…TINU Syndrome has not been found to have an etiology but resolves with approx. 6 mo treatment with steroids.”  The summary also noted that “although a specific etiology was not discovered, the pt’s signs and symptoms have improved with current therapy.”  The applicant was discharged from the hospital and returned to her duties in Alaska in July 1999.

According to the applicant’s petition to the Board she was medically discharged from active duty, in pay grade E-4, in August 2000, although there is no documentation in available information to confirm that fact.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 states that the requirements for promotion to pay grade E-4 is 26 months time in service and 6 months time in grade.  It also notes that the promotion is automatic unless the soldier is flagged or if the unit commander elects not to recommend the soldier for promotion to the next higher grade.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) denying the promotion is prepared and stops the automatic promotion.

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.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention promotion to pay grade E-4 after 26 months of active duty is not automatic.  Although there are no documents available to the Board, and the applicant has not provided any, clearly her unit commander must have taken action to deny her promotion in view of the fact that she was not “automatically” promoted after reaching 26 months of service.

2.  While the applicant maintains that her promotion was denied because of harassment and discrimination she has not provided any evidence which supports that claim.  If she entered active duty on 26 April 1996 she would have been eligible for promotion to pay grade E-4 on 26 June 1998.  The documents she submits in support of her request are all dated in March 1999 and later.

3.  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 that requirement.

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

__rvo__  ___tsk__  ___sk___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045377	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010227	
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.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.