MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           17 July 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057520

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 general discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That from the time she enlisted she endured several traumatic events.  In basic training she suffered a major third degree burn that has left her scarred for life.  In her first assignment in Bremerhaven, Germany she was subjected to sexual harassment.  She was extremely depressed and very suicidal.  The sergeant lost a stripe as a result of his harassment and she was transferred to Mannheim, Germany.  Around this time she underwent major surgery for a pelvic tumor, a treatment that over the years resulted in scar tissue, which has resulted in several follow up surgeries.  She admits she was perhaps ill advised to have enlisted.  She had a very traumatic childhood because of sexual abuse and she attempted suicide at age 14.  She was fragile and did not take verbal assaults well.  She was amazed she made it through basic training.  However, seldom did she feel respected and being in a male-dominated environment proved to be unbearable.  After a verbal altercation with a superior, whom she felt constantly talked down to her, she was demoted for insubordination.  After talking with a military psychologist she realized that she was an emotional wreck and needed to be released.  She has had continuous medical problems and has had continual emotional pain because she did not receive the proper care.  She feels the shame of her general discharge and she will forever believe that she should have received a medical discharge and that she should be compensated as such.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 May 1982 in pay grade E-3.  She had noted on her enlistment Report of Medical History, SF Form 93, that she had attempted suicide 7 years earlier, that she had menstrual irregularity and skipped periods, and that she had had a growth removed from an ovary at age 7.

The applicant’s military medical records show that on 23 August 1982 she was treated several times for a second degree burn to her right wrist after being burned by an iron.  On 27 August 1982, there was a moderate amount of yellow drainage and edema.  On 30 August 1982, her wrist was healing well with no drainage, no signs of redness, edema, or any signs of infection.  Her medical records show that she was treated numerous times for chronic pelvic pain, it appears the first time within 6 months of her enlistment.  Seven months later, she underwent exploratory laparotomy.  Several pelvic adhesions were lysed (disintegrated) and a right ovarian cystectomy and uterine suspension were performed.

The applicant completed basic training and advanced individual training and   was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police).  She was assigned to the 64th Military Police Detachment in Bremerhaven, Germany on   28 September 1982.

On or about 30 December 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 – 15 December 1982.  Her punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 and 7 days extra duty.

On 1 April 1983, the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-3.

On 7 April 1983, the applicant was reassigned to the 95th Military Police Battalion, Mannheim, Germany apparently for rehabilitative purposes.  It appears she received two additional rehabilitative transfers – from the Public Affairs Office to the Message Center and from the Message Center to duties as a company clerk.  

On 28 July 1983, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation.  No indication of psychosis, neurosis, or character and behavior disorder was revealed.  She was not viewed as depressive or apathetic.  It was noted that she verbalized little motivation to amend her dysfunctional attitudes/behavior and if retained on  active duty continued misconduct was anticipated regardless of rehabilitative efforts.

On 8 August 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for three specifications of disobeying a lawful order from her superior noncommissioned officer (NCO), one specification of being disrespectful in language towards her superior NCO, and one specification of being disrespectful in deportment towards her superior NCO.  Her punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of two and one half month’s pay, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days.  The applicant appealed the punishment of the extra duty and restriction.  She admitted her conduct was unbecoming a soldier and that it was not her first offense.  She regretted if the commander perceived her to be arrogant.  She was not arrogant, rather, she felt inferior because she had not excelled to a level of excellence of which she knew she was capable.  She was embarrassed by being unjustly removed from her position on the newspaper and her reduction to a grade two below that with which she began basic training.  She realized the seriousness of the offenses but did not think that they merited the punishments given.  On 17 August 1983, the punishments of 45 days extra duty and 45 days restriction were suspended.

Around September 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The applicant elected not to invoke her rights and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  

On 16 September 1983, the applicant’s commander officially recommended her for separation for unsatisfactory performance.  He cited her two Article 15s, her subpar duty performance, her three opportunities to satisfactorily adapt to a military way of life, and her desire to be separated as the reasons for the recommendation.

On 19 September 1983, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a general discharge.

On 3 October 1983, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge.  She had completed 1 year, 4 months, and 26 days of creditable active service and had 3 days of lost time.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.  The mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, or rank.

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 Board is sympathetic with the applicant’s pre-Army personal history.  The Board notes that her medical records indicated that she received a relatively minor, though surely painful, second degree burn on her wrist while in basic training.  While sexual harassment should never be condoned, the Board notes that in too many cases it is condoned and yet the harassed soldier goes on to a successful career.  In the applicant’s case, however, it was not condoned.  She states that her harasser was punished.  The Board realizes that it is sometimes difficult for a female to work in a male-dominated environment but many female soldiers successfully do so.  The Board notes that the applicant was treated numerous times for chronic pelvic pain and did undergo surgery for pelvic adhesions but also notes that a similar condition existed prior to her entry in the service.  There is no evidence to show that she was ever unfit for duty and in her Article 15 appeal she stated that she knew she was capable of performing at a level of excellence. 

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  Her record of disciplinary actions does not warrant a characterization of fully honorable and she did not meet the regulatory criteria for processing through the physical disability system.

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

__fne___  __slp___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057520	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010717	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.