MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            21 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000051074

	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. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Barr		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, that Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to show that she was medically retired.  She also requests that her Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code be changed to reflect the same.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that shortly after being assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, she was sexually assaulted in her barracks room by her roommate's boyfriend who threatened her life if she notified the authorities.  After the assault, she was forced to come in contact with her assailant on a daily basis in the performance of her duties.  She became emotionally overwhelmed with anxiety and she suffered from emotional, mental, and physical stress.  Because she feared for her life, it was weeks before the incident was reported.  She became further traumatized by the interrogation when her unit investigated the incident.  Her condition gradually worsened and led to her hospitalization at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. The investigation was hampered and later discontinued due to her medical status.  She was sent to Honolulu, Hawaii for separation processing.  Upon arrival in Hawaii, she was immediately hospitalized at Tripler Army Medical Center for medical treatment.  Later she was assigned to Fort Shafter, Hawaii, for final separation processing.  The separation officer failed to address the reason for her discharge or to inform her of her legal rights.  The discharge authority failed to consider her for a medical discharge.  She was told to sign her discharge or she would be separated without her signature.  She reasons that the assault occurred while she was performing her duties, therefore she should have received a medical discharge.  Even though she was immediately transferred to another barracks, she was never offered a compassionate reassignment.  She does not believe that her unit adequately assisted her during the critical period after the assault.  Had the incident happened today, she believes that she would have been treated differently and she would have received a medical discharge.  Psychiatric problems impaired her ability to serve.  Her transition to civilian life was affected and her social life and her relationship with others still suffer as a result of her ordeal and every day is a challenge.  It is still hard for her to function in a normal manner.  It has been hard for her to finish school and to maintain employment.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records will confirm her need for extensive mental health treatment.  The DVA has granted her a 100% disability rating due to post-traumatic stress disorder.  No DVA records were provided or considered in this case.  

In support of her application, the applicant submits her DD Form 214; a superior performance certificate that she received due to her ability to rapidly acquire basic military skills; a letter of commendation that she received for her performance of duty as a sentinel of the guard; a diploma for completion of the Administrative Specialist Course; and a letter that was provided to the DVA in support of her request. 

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

That on 23 September 1981, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training at Fort Jackson South Carolina and she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS)
71L (Administrative Specialist).  On 4 March 1982, she was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 11 May 1982, shows that on an unknown date, the applicant reported to the local health clinic and expressed that she was having suicidal feelings.  The examining official evaluated her and determined that she was "suffering [from] sexual identity crises due to early life trauma as well as acute depression and suicidal ideation."  On 15 April 1982, she was transferred to Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas.  The examining official authenticated a statement that indicates that the applicant's psychiatrist concurred with the determination and further diagnosed the applicant to have a severe borderline personality disorder with acute depressive features.  It was felt that the applicant's language barrier (Tagalog) complicated her situation and that release from the facility would be premature and further exacerbate her condition.  The mental status evaluation recommended that she eventually be expeditiously discharged from the military.  

On 14 May 1982, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program), with a HD.  He cited the basis for his recommendation was her inability to adapt socially and emotionally to military life. She had been given ample opportunity to adjust through counseling by superiors, but she displayed a lack of interest in being a productive soldier.

An undated endorsement shows that the applicant acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  She declined to submit a statement in her own behalf. 

On 18 May 1982, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a HD.  The applicant was assigned to the US Army, Separation Transfer Point, Fort Shafter for separation processing with a reporting date of 25 May 1982. 

On 25 May 1982, the applicant arrived at the Separation Transfer Point in such a "state of dismay that she could not sign her name."  A medical statement, dated 3 June 1982, states that "the applicant had been evaluated at Ward B27, Tripler Army Medical Center, Psychiatry Service, as an in-patient.  There was no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels."  She was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command and she was determined to be competent to understand and cooperate with those proceedings.  The statement is signed by both a medical doctor and the Chief of Psychiatry Service, Tripler Army Medical Center.

On 7 June 1982, the applicant was separated with a HD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program).  She was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (the United States Army Reserve Control Group, St. Louis) to complete her contractual service obligation.  She had completed a total of 8 months and 15 days of active military service and she had no recorded lost time.

The applicant served in the US Army Reserve from 8 June 1982 until she was honorably discharged on 21 April 1992.  

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of those individuals who failed to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  This paragraph also provided for the separation of those individuals that demonstrated an inability to adapt socially or emotionally to the Army environment or those who responded initially but within a short period of time demonstrated that they were incapable of permanent adjustment.  Under this regulation a GD or a HD was considered appropriate.

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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.  Both the characterization of service and the narrative reason for separation are commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  On 14 May 1982, the applicant was notified of the reason for her separation recommendation.  She authenticated a statement with her own signature in which she acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the separation. Further, the regulation then in effect stated that only those soldiers being separated with less than an HD would be afforded legal counsel.
4.  The Board notes that on 3 June 1982, examining officials at Tripler Army Medical Center, determined that "the applicant had no mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels."

5.  There is no evidence that the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder at the time of separation.  There is absolutely no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant submitted any, to corroborate her story that she was the victim of a sexual assault.

6.  An award of a DVA rating does not establish entitlement to a medical separation.  The DVA is not required to find unfitness for duty.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the DVA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service-connected.  Furthermore, the DVA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  The Army must find unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated.

7.  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

__JEV___  ___BJE_  ___WDB_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000051074	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20010821	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	19820607	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A40.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.