MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034676

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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:  Reconsideration of her earlier application to correct her records by changing the reason for her separation to physical disability.  She also requests promotion to captain and punitive damages.

APPLICANT STATES:   In effect, that she was the victim of sexual and racial harassment and was mistreated.  She relates that she was given powerful anti-psychotic drugs and was then advised to have an abortion.  She believes that she was not given proper counseling about either taking the drugs or having the abortion. She reports that she was unable to respond to the referred OER because she was hospitalized.  She submits copies of numerous service record and service medical record pages and a 22 September 1998 medical progress note from the VA. 

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel concurs in the applicant's presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant's favor.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in memoranda prepared to reflect the Board's previous considerations of the case on 11 April 1990 and 26 August 1998 (COPIES ATTACHED).

The 22 September 1998 VA medical record is, technically, new evidence.  Board consideration is appropriate.

The VA medical progress note reports that the applicant is being followed for schizophrenia and claims PTSD as the result of an abortion for which she blames the Army’s doctors.  She is obsessed with this theme and relives the episode through dreams and flashbacks.  It is noted that, at the time of the applicant’s period of service, the fetal side effects of the drugs she was reportedly administered were completely unknown and that an abortion was medically indicated.  It is also noted that the same result might obtain today even though the Army had become more sensitive to women’s issues.
 
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.  Even thought the VA medical record may, technically, be new evidence in the case there is no available evidence that any physical or mental condition had any relevance to the applicant’s voluntarily request for release from active duty.

3.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contention that she was unable to respond to the referred OER because of hospitalization, there is no evidence to support her contention that she should have been promoted.

4.  There is no evidence to support any of her requests.  Expressions of dissatisfaction with previous decisions, contentions, unsubstantiated assertions, interpretations and argument are not evidence.

5.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

__hof____  __mw____  __dw___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034676	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1991221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.	131.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.