MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            1 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031067

	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:

	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, 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:  In effect, that she be allowed to return to the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) and that her conditional promotion to pay grade E-7 be reinstated.

APPLICANT STATES:  She has always known that she has had some sort of learning disorder because she always had to struggle.  She notes that in January 1999, while attending ANCOC, she began to experience difficulties “with timed tests and failed some of them.”  She states that the harder she tried to catch up the further behind she fell and as a result became depressed.  She indicated that the “staff and faculty permitted [her] to retest three times on the same test and the outcome was the same” and as such she was dismissed from the course.

After her return to her parent unit she decided to seek medical attention and it was “revealed for the first time that [she] had Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Depression” which allowed her to “view things on a different level.”  She states she was put on daily medication which has made her “more focused, less confused, able to concentrate on several tasks and has assisted in eliminating [her] depression.” 

The applicant notes that her appeal for administrative relief from the Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) Reinstatement Panel was denied because the board based their decision “upon speculation and with complete disregard to the medical evidence presented.” 

In support of her request she submits copies of her appeal to the NCOES Reinstatement Panel and medical information relating to her ADD diagnosis.  She also submits a July 1999 statement from the Chief, Neuropsychology Service at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who stated that “it is reasonable to assume that the symptoms of ADD interfered with her [the applicant] demonstrating her true underlying capabilities.”  He noted the applicant was now receiving medication and recommended she be “re-instated to ANCOC and be permitted to take her examinations under untimed conditions.”

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel offers nothing beyond that submitted by the applicant.

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

She entered active duty on 27 October 1983 at the age of 23 with 12 years of formal education.  She successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training as an administrative specialist.

In April 1987 the applicant successfully completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC).  Her academic evaluation report from the course indicated that she “completes tasks with minimal guidance” and “has excellent comprehension….”

Between September 1987 and October 1988 the applicant performed duties as an administrative specialist with responsibility for “the overall operation of the EER [Enlisted Evaluation Report] Section.”  One of her evaluation reports, rendered in June 1988, noted that she “performed her duties and responsibilities with minimum supervision” and was a “self-starter” who always found ways “to improve her work station.”  A second report, rendered in October 1988, indicated that the Battalion Commander commended the applicant, that she completed numerous correspondence and civilian courses, and that her “professional competence and dedication resulted in 100% processing rate on EERs/NCOERs.”  The report also noted that the applicant had attained “go’s” on all of her Common Task Training (CTT) skills.

In August 1990 the applicant successfully completed the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana.  Her academic report for the course noted that she was “outstanding based upon [her] academic average” and that she met all standards on written and performance examinations.

A 1992 evaluation report indicated the applicant “scored an 80” on her Skill Qualification Test (SQT) and that she “achieved 18 “go’s” on 18 events on [the] CTT.”

In December 1993 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-6 and in 1997 she received an Associate’s Degree in General Studies from Central Texas College with a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 3.375.

On 1 November 1998 the applicant was “conditionally” promoted to pay grade 
E-7 pending completion of ANCOC.

In January 1999 the applicant commenced ANCOC and in February 1999 she was “academically eliminated due to multiple test failures on NCOER [Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report] examinations.”  The academic evaluation report indicated the applicant “demonstrated poor research ability by failing to extract answers from regulations, handouts, and notes.”  The applicant indicated on her removal notification from ANCOC that she would submit an appeal.  However, a copy of the appeal was not submitted in the evidence provided by the applicant to the Board and was not in records available to the Board.

As a result of the applicant’s administrative removal from ANCOC her conditional promotion to pay grade E-7 was revoked.

On 2 March 1999 the applicant was evaluated by the clinical neuropsychologist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  The physician noted that the applicant reported that “the lectures at ANCOC were fast moving and the tests were timed and she was unable to keep up with the pace.”  She indicated that “she experienced problems focusing her attention…[and] as a result, she performed poorly.”  She noted she had had similar difficulties while taking college-level classes, but compensated by taking a limited course load and reviewing material at her own pace in the evenings.  She also noted that her children were being treated for ADD.  The evaluating physician concluded, “overall, findings are consistent with provisional diagnoses of both ADD and depression.”  He recommended the applicant consider a “medication trial targeting both depressive and ADD symptoms…psychological treatment for depression…[and] ADD support group in community.”

Medical documents provided by the applicant indicate that at least one of her children was evaluated for ADD in March 1990.

In March 1999 the applicant appealed to the NCOES Reinstatement Panel that she should be allowed to return to ANCOC and have her conditional promotion to pay grade E-7 reinstated.  While the copy of the applicant’s endorsement by her chain of command was contained in documents available to the Board her original appeal was not.  The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of her request noting that the applicant was an outstanding soldier and that “her medical conditions, accompanied by the various training distractions she encountered during ANCOC, played a major role in her unsuccessful attempt to complete the course.”

The NCOES Reinstatement Panel denied the applicant’s petition on 26 April 1999.  Voting sheets, provided by the applicant as a result of a Freedom of Information request, indicate that panel members noted the applicant’s high aptitude area scores appeared to be inconsistent with her ADD diagnosis, that she failed the tests by only one or two points, and that she had been given every opportunity to pass the examine in question.

As part of the NCOES Reinstatement Panel action the Office of the Surgeon General provided an opinion.  That opinion noted that “depression & ADD may have had a role in SM’s [servicemember’s] failure” of ANCOC but recommended that if she responded to medication they would recommend returning her ANCOC but that “no accommodation should be made for timed tests, etc.”

Army Regulation 351-1 states that students who fail to meet TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command) test standards after two separate evaluations (original test and one retest) may be dismissed from training for academic deficiency.

A fact sheet, published by the National Attention Deficit Disorder Association, notes that ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), which is commonly referred to as ADD, is a diagnosis applied to children and adults who consistently display certain characteristic behaviors over a period to time.  The most common core features include:
	
	Distractibility (poor sustained attention to tasks)
	Impulsivity (impaired impulse control and delay in gratification)
	Hyperactivity (excessive activity and physical restlessness)

In order to meet diagnostic criteria these behaviors must be excessive, long-term, and pervasive.  According to the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) some common symptoms of ADHD include: often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes; often has difficulty sustaining attention to tasks; often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly; often fails to follow instructions carefully and completely; losing or forgetting important things; feeling restless, often fidgeting with hands or feet, or squirming, etc.  It also notes, however, that the exact nature and severity of ADHD symptoms varies from person to person.

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.  While the applicant maintains that she has always had some learning disabilities the evidence in her records indicate that she has managed to succeed in every phase of her military career except on three NCOER examinations during ANCOC.  Other evidence in her record does not support her contention that her undiagnosed ADD was the basis for her failure.  Information in her record indicates she scored successfully on other timed tests which would have been administered during her enlistment processing, advanced individual training, PLDC, BNCOC, CTT and SQT.

2.  She readily admits that while attending college courses she “compensated by taking a limited course load and reviewing material at her own pace in the evening.”  The Board notes that distractions of her daily work environment and daily family commitments would not have been present during her resident ANCOC, giving her more than ample opportunity to review the NCOER material at her own pace during evening hours.  The Board also notes that while the regulation provides for only one retest, the applicant was permitted to retest on two occasions.

3.  While the Board is certainly sympathetic to the applicant’s plight, the available evidence does not support a conclusion that her ADD was the basis for her academic removal from ANCOC and as such there appears to be no evidence of error or injustice in the applicant’s case.

4.  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.

5.  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

__dj ____  ___ewl __  __kak___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031067	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  23	103.0000/ANCOC	
2.  310	131.0000/reinstate promotion 	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.