IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002207 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002207 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002207 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states that she was administratively discharged without proper evaluation of her medical conditions. a. She states that she was harassed in a humiliating way by a female commissioned officer who constantly criticized her appearance. She was unable to pass an inspection, which was due to bizarre and unfair treatment by the officer. As a result, the applicant was recycled in basic training. A couple of weeks later she was found unconscious under a tree by three female officers. She believes she had a seizure. Her request to see a doctor was denied. b. Following basic training she completed advanced individual training (AIT). She had difficulty concentrating and sleeping, and she had suicidal thoughts. Again, her request to see a doctor was ignored. She was sent to the chaplain and told the chaplain that she sometimes saw a vision of a dead Soldier. c. She was subsequently discharged from the U.S. Army. She states that she was physically and mentally ill, and unable to understand the type of discharge she received. She was deeply affected by the nature of her discharge and how it would affect her life. A few months after her discharge she attempted suicide. She received treatment at a civilian clinic. d. She was unable to find employment and she was very depressed. She eventually went to the Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) in Gainesville, FL. She recounted her visions of dead Soldiers to a psychiatrist and was admitted to the hospital. There were frequent advances made to her from men on the ward. She received very little support from the staff and she was abruptly discharged from the hospital. A short time later, she returned to the hospital. She was then sent to a psychiatric hospital in Tuscaloosa, AL, which was a more horrible experience. e. She eventually returned to Gainesville, FL, and enrolled in school. She completed paralegal training, but she was unable to sustain employment. After 10 years she decided to return home to St. Petersburg, FL. However, her mother did not want her to come home. In a meeting with her psychiatrist, her mother was told that the applicant was diagnosed as passive aggressive. He opined that the applicant should have been medically discharged from the U.S. Army. She states she has not been afforded proper treatment by the VAMC. A psychologist suggested that she should try to have happy thoughts. f. She adds that she comes from a military family. However, after she was discharged, some of the members of her family never spoke to her again. g. She requests personal appearance before the Board. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement (summarized above), a certificate of training, and three character reference letters. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 July 1972 for a period of 3 years. She was assigned to Fort McClellan, AL, for basic training. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 for being absent from her unit on 19 September 1972 from 1710 hours to 2100 hours. 2. She was reassigned to Fort Sam Houston, TX, for AIT in military occupational specialty 91A (Medical Corpsman). Upon completion of training, she was reassigned to Fort Jackson, SC. 3. The applicant accepted NJP under Article 15: * on 13 February 1973, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 December 1972 to 22 January 1973 * on 23 April 1973, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty on three occasions 4. On 6 June 1973, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for unauthorized absence from duty on 2 June 1973 and for being late to work on 5 June 1973. 5. On 27 June 1973, the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial of failing to obey a lawful order on two occasions. She was sentenced to forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for one month, extra duty for 15 days, restriction for 15 days, and reduction to private (E-1). 6. On 9 August 1973, the company commander notified the applicant of her proposed recommendation to discharge the applicant under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsuitability based on character and behavior disorders as determined by repeated petty offenses. She was advised of her rights. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification. 7. On 10 August 1973, the applicant was advised by her legal counsel of the basis for the action against her. She acknowledged that she understood she would encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that she might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws if a general, under honorable conditions discharge was issued to her. She waived consideration of her case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before a board of officers, declined to submit statements in her own behalf, and waived legal representation. 8. On 10 August 1973, the company commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation and forwarded the separation packet to the separation authority. Listed as enclosures to the separation packet were, in pertinent part, a Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History), SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), and Mental Health Certificate. 9. On 28 August 1973, the separation authority approved the request to discharge the applicant UP AR 635-200, paragraph 13-5b(2), for unsuitability with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 10. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows she was discharged on 31 August 1973 UP AR 635-200, chapter 13, based on unsuitability. She had completed 1 year and 10 days of net active service this period and she had 26 days of lost time. 11. On 18 July 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) notified the applicant that her request for upgrade of her discharge was denied. The ADRB proceedings show that a psychiatric evaluation was conducted on 11 July 1973 and the applicant was diagnosed as having situational adjustment reaction, acute, moderate, manifested by diffused anxiety, insomnia, and inability to concentrate. 12. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) previously considered and denied the applicant's petition on 18 November 2004. 13. In support of her application the applicant provided the following documents: a. DA Form 87 (Certificate of Training) that shows she completed a First Aid Treatment course on 25 September 1972. b. Three character reference letters that show: * on 8 March 2004, Maria C___, Psy.D., Assistant Chief, Mental Health and Behavioral Sciences, VAMC, Bay Pines, FL, stated that she had known the applicant from a professional standpoint for 12 years. She commented on her honesty and commitment to utilizing the facility's resources. * on 9 March 2004, Lawrence Gregg M__, Chaplain, VAMC, Bay Pines, FL, stated that he had known the applicant for more than 4 years. He commented on her honesty and sincerity in dealing with others. * on an unspecified date, Captain William M___, U.S. Army Reserve (Retired), stated the applicant has been an acquaintance of his for several years. He commented on her cheerfulness in helping her neighbors and active participation in community affairs. 14. On 18 March 2015, the Chief, Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, Arlington, VA, notified the applicant that in order for the ABCMR to consider her application, she must provide (within 90 days) copies of the medical documents that support her medical condition(s). A response was not received from the applicant. 15. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Behavioral Health Division, Health Care Delivery, U.S. Army Medical Command, Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG), Falls Church, VA. a. The official stated that the advisory opinion was based on the available records from the applicant's active duty service. b. He stated that there is no indication in her service record of a physical or mental disability interfering with her performance or rendering her unfit for duty. In addition, despite the applicant's reference to having a seizure disorder, visual hallucinations, and suicidal thoughts, there is no corroborating evidence of the conditions. c. He stated that the applicant's commanding officer at the time of her separation noted, "[The applicant] presents a good appearance in uniform, however, she is extremely stubborn and uncooperative. She has a desire to do well, but gives up too easily and expects to be excused for her unacceptable behavior. Her problem stems from her inability to adjust to the military." d. He noted that regarding the applicant's assertion that her depression prevented her from understanding the repercussions of a general discharge, there is no record that she sought help for depression. In addition, her conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent until December 1972. 16. On 19 March 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the OTSG advisory opinion to allow her the opportunity (15 days) to submit comments or a rebuttal. A response was not received from the applicant. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided for separation for unfitness and unsuitability. a. Chapter 13, paragraph 13-5b(2), provided for the separation of individuals for unsuitability based on character and behavior disorders. An individual is subject to separation for unsuitability when, as determined by medical authority, the character and behavior disorders are chronic and recalcitrant to attempts at rehabilitation and interfere with the serviceman's ability to adequately perform his/her duties. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. b. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 2. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), Chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement), in effect at the time, shows in: a. paragraph 3-31a that character and behavior disorders were considered to render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability. Interference with performance of effective duty will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels; and b. paragraph 31-31b that transient personality disruptions of a nonpsychotic nature and situational maladjustments due to acute or special stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-11 states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director of the ABCMR or the chair of an ABCMR panel may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that her administrative discharge should be upgraded because she was separated without proper evaluation of her medical conditions. 2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 3. The evidence of record shows the applicant underwent a physical examination prior to her separation that included a mental health assessment. a. A psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with situational adjustment reaction, acute, moderate, manifested by diffused anxiety, insomnia, and inability to concentrate. These conditions rendered her administratively unfit, but not physically disabled. b. There is no evidence which indicates the applicant incurred any medical condition that rendered her medically unfit prior to her discharge. 4. The applicant's administrative separation UP AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability based on character and behavior disorders was administratively correct and in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights. Considering all the facts of this case, the reason for her separation and characterization of service were appropriate and equitable. 5. During the period of service under review the applicant received a letter of reprimand, NJP on three occasions, a summary court-martial, she was reduced to private (E-1), and she had 26 days of time lost. In addition, she completed only about 1 year of her 3-year active duty obligation. The applicant's overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002207 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002207 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2