MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 April 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000051050

	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	
	Mr. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 records be corrected to show she was discharged in the rank of sergeant first class (SFC), pay grade E-7 and that        3 educational courses be included on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or discharge from Active Duty), dated 7 November 2000.  In addition, she wants her records to show a completed Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD).

APPLICANT STATES: That “she was promoted to E-7 when requested discharge had to be reduced due to not completing 2 years.  DD Form 214 should still reflect the highest grade of E-7.  Completed Army schools at least   40 hours in length that are not reflected on my 214.  MEB[D] never completed.”  She provides copies of her DD Form 214, 3 completion certificates from the USAR Reserve Readiness Training Center, a copy of her promotion order to E-7, a letter from the Chief, Patient Affairs Branch, Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) which includes a copy of a Medical Evaluation Board Report Summary dated 3 November 1998, and a 30 March 2000 request from the Command Executive Officer of the 95th Division (IT) to the Commander, Darnall Army Community Hospital, Fort Hood, Texas which requested a “fit-for-duty” physical examination.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records for this period of service were not available.  Information herein was obtained from alternate sources.

On 16 March 1997, she entered active duty as a member of the Army Reserve in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, in pay grade E-6.  She had previously completed 9 years, 7 months and 26 days of AGR active duty.

On 3 November 1998, a physician at BAMC accomplished a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD) Report Summary after she had been referred for a “fitness for duty“ evaluation.  In this report she gave a history of chronic, heavy marijuana usage.  She related how she left her AGR status and took a job in Washington and was, in approximately a month, directed to return to her AGR position.  She indicated she had filed for a divorce after 17 years of “extremely abusive, horrible marriage”.  She was issued a physical profile of S4 (Phychiatric) by a physician at BAMC for (1) bipolar disorder, (2) Barretts esophagus, (3) fibrocystic disease of the breast, (4) left kidney cyst, (5) colonic polyp, (6) and irritable bowel syndrome.  The profile also indicated she was “unfit for military duty”; however, there is no approval authorization and the profile is not valid.  

During the period 8 December 1998 through 8 July 1999, she was on convalescent leave under the authority of the Chief, Psychiatric Department, BAMC, who had completed her MEBD Report Summary.

On 14 July 1999, TAPC-MSL-E Orders, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) announced the promotion of the individual concerned to SFC, effective 1 August 1999.  These orders specified that she automatically incurred a 2-year AGR obligation prior to voluntary non-disability retirement.  The promotion was not valid if she was not in a promotable status on the effective date of promotion.

On 17 March 2000, in response to a memorandum from the Commander,       95th Division, the Chief, Patient Affairs Branch, BAMC indicated that a physician cannot state that a soldier is no longer fit for further military service.  Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) indicates they can state that a soldier does not meet the standards for retention as outlined in chapter 3.  The case was referred to Reynolds Army Community Hospital (RACH), Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for evaluation.

On 7 November 2000, she was released from active duty in pay grade E-6 under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-16a(1), based on her request and intradepartmentally transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), St. Louis, Missouri.  Her separation document indicates she had 3 years, 7 months and 22 days of creditable service this period.  She failed to complete her required 2 years in grade.

On 13 February 2001, a staff member at RACH advised a staff member of this Board, that there was no record of treatment of the applicant at that facility. 

On 14 February 2001, a staff member at BAMC advised a staff member of this Board, that there was nothing in their records, which this Board does not already have.  The BAMC staff member did have personal knowledge of the applicant’s medical processing and indicated the applicant refused to provide pertinent medical records on which to process a MEBD and the procedure could not go forward.  Two years later, when the unit requested the second “fitness for duty” examination, all the medical personnel with knowledge of her case were gone and it was referred to Fort Sill.

AR 40-501 indicates the medical standards for retention.

AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) indicate, in pertinent part, that only formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214 are covered.  The course description listed in Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet (Pam) 351-4 is the guideline to entry of courses.

AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-16a(1) indicates that “AGR soldiers may be voluntarily released from active duty, at their request, when such release is fully justified and determined to be in the best interest of the Government.”

AR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), paragraph 7-43 (Acceptance) c and f, indicates that “soldiers promoted to pay grades E-7, E-8, and E-9 will incur a 2-year service obligation.  It will be from the effective date of the promotion before voluntary nondisability retirement, unless they are in one of the following categories:  (1) Eligible for retirement by completing 30 or more years of active Federal Service.  (2) Already eligible through prior service for a higher grade at time of retirement.  (3) Age 55 or older.”  Total Army Personnel Command promotion orders to grade E-7, E-8, or E-9 will include the following statement:  “Soldiers who are promoted automatically incur a 2-year service obligation before voluntary nondisability retirement.”

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 failed to complete the required service after being promoted to E-7 and was properly separated as an E-6.  She did not qualify for retention of her rank under any of the exceptions.  She satisfactorily held the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E-6.

2.  The courses listed by the applicant (USAR Unit Pay Administration course; Active Guard Reserve Entry Training, and Basic Computer/Class Course) do not qualify for inclusion on the DA Form 214 in accordance with regulatory guidance.

3.  There is no evidence that the applicant completed MEBD processing for separation.  Her physical profile was not valid, since it had not been approved.

4.  The BAMC staff member indicated the applicant did not complete her physical examination and refused to provide the necessary medical records to complete medical board proceedings.

5.  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.

6.  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

_ra_____  __rtd___  _dh_____    DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000051050	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010412	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.131	131	
2.100	100	
3.108	108	
4.		
5.		
6.