IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 January 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006605 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration 1. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 January 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006605 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 reconsideration of her previous requests for restoration of her rank to private first class (PFC). As new issues, she also requests the following: * retroactive pay for active duty service from 1982 to November 1984 * reimbursement of monies taken as a result of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) * payment for all the promotions she should have received * compensation for the crimes committed against her and for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from 1984 until she was eligible and awarded benefits * eligibility for medical care through TRICARE * upgrade of her life insurance (interpreted to mean participation in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) 2. The applicant states: a. Her original discharge from the Army was upgraded to honorable and she was credited with active duty service through 25 November 1984. Because she was returned to active duty on paper, she should be paid active duty pay for that time frame, including all of the promotions she should have received at the time of eligibility. She was reduced in rank and fined; that pay should be returned. Enclosure 2 b. After refusing the advances of the female commanding officer (CO), she was punished by her CO, written up with falsified offenses, and was kept under house arrest. c. Her original DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the separation code "JMJ"; a prospective employer pointed out to her that that code designated her as unemployable. That code kept her from gaining productive employment. d. Not only was she discharged wrongfully and unjustly, which caused her loss of income and career, it led to her not having enough "units" to be eligible for social security when she turns age 62. Her loss of income was addressed by letters from her attorney to remedy this situation but so far, she has not received any back pay or compensation for her lost wages due to the wrongful discharge and unjust separation code on her DD Form 214. e. She loved her job and planned on making the Army her career. She would have retired in November of 2000. The wrongful discharge kept her from being able to apply and receive care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and for applying for compensation for her PTSD. f. Her request for pay includes her corrected active duty years and VA compensation from 1984 until the date she got the wrongful discharge correction and was able to apply for VA compensation for PTSD. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Forms 214, for the periods ending 10 May 1982 and 25 November 1984 * DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record – Part I) * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) * two pages of her separation packet * two letters from her attorney dated 10 September 1997 and 2 September 1998 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous considerations of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Dockets Number AC95-08544 and AC95-08544B, dated on 14 February 1996 and 17 June 1998, respectively. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 November 1980 for a period of 4 years. She was discharged on 10 May 1982. Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged in the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2, under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, paragraph 13-4c(2), by reason of unsuitability – apathy, defective attitude, or inability to expend effort constructively. Her DD Form 214 shows her service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general) and she was assigned a separation code of "JMJ" and a reenlistment code (RE code) of "3." 3. On 30 December 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a records review, denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge. 4. On 16 May 1994, the applicant and her counsel appeared before the ADRB. In a three-to-two vote, the ADRB concluded the applicant's reason for discharge and characterization of service were inequitable. Therefore, the ADRB issued her a new DD Form 214 changing the reason for separation to "Directed by the Secretary of the Army" and the characterization of service to honorable. In her appeal before the ADRB, the applicant stated that her problems in the Army began in mid-November 1981 and she was the victim of homosexual advances from her commanding officer. 5. In an application dated 11 June 1995, the applicant requested from the ABCMR the following: * restoration of her rank to PFC * removal of all derogatory information from her military record * change of her RE code 6. The following is summary of the applicant's Record of Proceedings, summarized by the ABCMR in Docket Number AC95-08544, on 14 February 1996. a. The applicant stated that her case was reviewed and found to be in error by the ADRB on 16 May 1994. b. The applicant's counsel contended the applicant was released from active duty on 10 May 1982, with an unjust and inequitable discharge; that the ADRB found her discharge was, in fact, in error; and that the applicant had suffered needless anxiety and stress for 12 years because of the erroneous and capricious way in which she was discharged. a. c. She was assigned to Germany upon completion of initial entry training and reported to her unit in Germany on 23 March 1981. d. She received a letter of reprimand from her CO on 25 March 1981 for being disrespectful in language and general deportment towards a first lieutenant. e. She was counseled by her first line supervisor on 16 June 1981. The reason for the counseling was that she had not applied herself as well as she could, that she needed to familiarize herself with applicable regulations, and that she needed to be dedicated and self-motivated to be able to do her job. f. She was counseled by her team chief on 14 August 1981 for missing formation. e. She was promoted to the rank and grade of PFC/E-3 on 26 November 1981. f. She was counseled by her first line supervisor on 15 December 1981 for being derelict in the performance of her duties by failing to repair, for being absent from her desk, and for displaying a poor work attitude. g. She received a letter of reprimand from her CO on 21 December 1981 for refusing to service a customer and for absenting herself from her section for 45 minutes without informing her first line supervisor of her whereabouts. h. She accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 23 March 1982, for disobeying a lawful order issued by her commanding officer. The punishment consisted of reduction in rank to private (PVT)/E-2, forfeiture of $144, and 14 days of extra duty. The record indicates she appealed the NJP and on 28 March 1982, her battalion commander denied her appeal. i. A memorandum for record, prepared by the applicant's CO on 1 April 1982, indicates that on 31 March 1982, while the CO was conducting an in ranks inspection, the applicant was asked "where her rank was" and she responded without any sign of military courtesy. She was reminded how she should respond but she responded in a disrespectful/mocking tone. When the first sergeant greeted her with "good morning," she would not reply or acknowledge his presence. After formation, she was ordered to report to her CO's office to be formally counseled on the aforementioned incidents. She had to be brought into i. the office twice for failure to properly report and later that same date, she refused to sign her NJP and acknowledge notification that her appeal had been denied. j. On 5 April 1982, her CO notified her that she was initiating action to eliminate her from service under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsuitability. She was advised of her rights to consult with legal counsel. She was also notified that she was to acknowledge receipt of the aforementioned notification by 8 April 1982. k. The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 8 April 1982. The psychiatrist reported the following: "Service member blames personality conflicts as the source of her current difficulties. States she does an excellent job and is well liked by her coworkers. She received an Article 15 for having a man in her room, but now denies that this happened. She is largely unwilling to assume responsibility for these difficulties and is insistent on fighting a chapter 13." The psychiatrist found no mental disorder and cleared her for separation. l. The record indicates on 8 April 1982, the applicant submitted an equal opportunity complaint. On 12 April 1982, after carefully reviewing her complaint and talking with the parties concerned, the investigator concluded that the applicant's CO was totally justified in taking the past and current actions against her, that he (the investigator) was thoroughly convinced the applicant's attitude was more disruptive than productive, and he challenged the applicant to accept personal responsibility for her past actions and consciously strive to develop a more positive attitude toward her work and the people she worked with. m. On 20 April 1982, the applicant's CO recommended her discharge, prior to the expiration of her term of service (ETS), under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsuitability - apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively. Her CO based her request on the applicant's record of service. Her CO also recommended waiver of any further rehabilitation of the applicant. n. On 30 April 1982, after having been advised of her rights by legal counsel, the applicant authenticated a statement with her signature in which she acknowledged notification of the action to separate her from service, requested consulting counsel, indicated that she would submit statements in her own behalf, and indicated she understood the ramifications of receiving a less than fully honorable discharge. o. On 30 April 1982 the applicant's defense counsel submitted a statement on the applicant's behalf indicating the applicant had demonstrated through third- j. party statements that she was capable of serving as an above average Soldier. The applicant's counsel indicated that waiving rehabilitation requirements would be inappropriate. On the same date, the applicant's battalion commander recommended disapproval of the action to separate her and recommended she be granted a rehabilitation transfer. p. In a note to the Commander, Division Support Command (later referred to as the separation authority), the Division Adjutant General stated that he had previously interviewed the applicant and discussed several problems with her; that based on her commander's recommendation coupled with his own observation, the applicant should not remain in the Army; that in the 13 months she had been assigned to the Records Processing Center, she had received numerous counseling statements, two letters of reprimand, and an Article 15; that to date, she had failed to meet acceptable standards for perform and conduct; that he disagreed the applicant should receive a rehabilitative transfer; that a transfer to another military personnel office within the division would only transfer a nonproductive Soldier to another commander; and that he recommended the chapter 13 discharge be approved. q. On 5 May 1982, the separation authority stated the following: "I have taken into consideration the recommendations of the battalion commander, the defense counsel, and the statements that were submitted in behalf of the service member. Based upon her past record, she has been a nonproductive Soldier. I feel a rehabilitative transfer would not be in the best interest of the Army." r. The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and issuance of a general discharge. Additionally, the separation authority indicated the applicant did not possess potential for useful service during a period of total mobilization and indicated she would not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. s. The applicant was discharged on 10 May 1982. She completed 1 year, 5 months, and 15 days of active service. 7. The Board noted/concluded the following: a. There is no evidence in the applicant's record, except her post-service statements, indicating she was the victim of homosexual advances from her CO. b. The applicant received a letter of reprimand from her CO for being disrespectful in deportment towards an officer. The letter of reprimand was imposed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 6 c. The applicant received a letter of reprimand from her CO for refusing to service a customer and for absenting herself from her section for 45 minutes. The letter of reprimand was imposed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. d. The applicant accepted NJP for violation of Article 92 (disobeyed a lawful order), UCMJ. Part of the punishment imposed included a reduction in rank to PVT/E-2. The applicant appealed the NJP and the punishment imposed. However, the appropriate authority denied her appeal. The NJP was imposed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the offense, and there is no evidence of any substantive violation of any of the applicant's rights. e. The letters of reprimand and NJP were appropriately file. f. Contrary to the applicant's contentions that she was the victim of arbitrary and capricious acts on the part of her chain of command, and notwithstanding the ADRB's decision, the Board concluded the applicant's record clearly showed that for whatever reason, she was a very disruptive influence in her unit; that her incidents of misconduct started the day she arrived in Germany; that she had ample opportunity to make her current allegations about her last CO (i.e., homosexual advances) while she was still in service and did not; that her problems with authority figures were not limited to her last CO or her immediate chain of command; that she was properly counseled and disciplined; and that her chain of command took appropriate action to separate her from service. g. The Board found no justification for restoring her rank to PFC/E-3 or for changing her RE code. 8. A U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 2 June 1997, shows: a. The applicant made a complaint to the U.S. Army Sexual Harassment Hotline and reported she was indecently assaulted by her CO (Miss H). b. The investigation established probable cause to believe Miss H committed the offense of Indecent Assault, when she was a member of the U.S. Army, and fondled the applicant's breast and buttocks. c. The investigation also established probable cause to believe Miss H, committed the offense of Cruelty and Maltreatment of a Subordinate, while she 7 was the applicant's CO and made numerous sexual advances towards the applicant, which she rejected. As a result, Miss H ordered the applicant to perform extra duties, in an attempt to force the applicant to yield to Miss H's sexual desires. 9. The applicant submitted another application to the ABCMR (Docket Number AC95-08544B) requesting the following: * setting aside the NJP under Article 15, UCMJ * expunging a letter of reprimand from her military records * change of RE code to RE-1 * back pay to date of her discharge * retirement due to physical disability and an apology 10. She stated that she was sexually harassed by her female company commander who retaliated when her advances were thwarted. She reported that she has suffered significant mental health problems as a result of the incident. She submitted a copy of a CID ROI to support her contention and copies of private and VA mental health records to document her struggles. 11. The following was noted/concluded by the ABCMR in proceedings summarized in Docket Number AC95-08544B, on 17 June 1998. a. The CID investigation was commenced in January 1997 in response to the applicant's official complaint to the Army's Sexual Harassment Hotline. It appears to have been coincident to her ongoing mental health problems and associated employment problems caused in part by her RE code and separation program designator (SPN code) which shows that she was separated for unsatisfactory performance b. Conclusions: (1) The applicant was sexually harassed by her company commander and retaliation occurred. (2) The available evidence indicates the applicant's misconduct and unsatisfactory performance was not entirely the product of retaliation. Therefore, granting her request for reinstatement to pay status and promotion is not warranted and there is no evidence to support that she was physically unable to perform her duties. Nevertheless, justice requires that it now be treated as if that were the case to the extent that the record NJP, letters of reprimand, and counseling statements should all be expunged. (1) (3) The applicant's discharge should be voided and she should be credited with completion of her enlistment and her RE code changed accordingly. 12. The ABCMR recommended correction of the applicant's records as follows: a. expunging the record of NJP, the letters of reprimand, and all negative counseling statements; b. voiding the applicant's 10 May 1982 discharge (as amended by the ADRB); and c. issuing her a new Honorable Discharge Certificate and DD Form 214 showing that she was separated on 25 November 1984, at her original ETS, and changing her RE code to "1." d. That so much of the application as is in excess of the forgoing be denied. 13. The ABCMR recommendations were approved the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) on 30 June 1998. 14. On or around December 1998, the applicant submitted another application to the ABCMR (AR1999016813) requesting reconsideration of her discharge by awarding her a retirement based on physical disability. She stated she was receiving service-connected disability benefits from the VA for PTSD and was, in fact, incapable of performing duty or any useful work because PTSD since 1981. The PTSD was the result of homosexual harassment by her CO. Her problems started in November 1981 and she had not been able to function normally since. She also contended that she should be allowed to collect damages and that debts to the Post Exchange should be excused because she lost income as a result of this harassment. She submitted medical documents from the VA and civilian sources to demonstrate that she was disabled. 15. The Board noted in ABCMR Docket Number AR1999016813, dated 27 October 1999, that the applicant's supporting documents included: a. An 8 December 1998 letter from a director of counseling services who opined that the sexual abuse in the Army, as described by the applicant, has and is causing bouts of depression, a negative sense of self and inability to pursue meaningful relationships. a. b. An 8 December 1998 letter from a director of counseling repeats this basic opinion but goes on to report " ... a pattern probably caused by exaggeration of symptoms due to a cry for help or possible malingering .... " c. Another 8 December 1998 letter from the same mental health professional that states that the stress of the events in her military career created her current situation that requires on-going treatment. d. A "22 October" VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination notes the applicant divorced in 1989 after eight years of marriage. This exam produced an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features of anxiety and depression. Features of PTSD are noted but the applicant did not meet the diagnostic criteria of PTSD. e. A 27 October psychiatric C&P work-up produced diagnosis of PTSD and dysthymic disorder. f. A 9 December 1998 letter from a medical doctor to the effect that her post- military adjustment problems are the result of PTSD and that she is unemployable. g. The VA granted disability at 50 percent for PTSD from December 1995 which was increased to 70 percent in January 1998. h. Letter from a sister and three friends report that the applicant was changed by her military experience whereas she had been happy, self-confident and outgoing she came home reclusive, avoidant, and distrustful. i. The Office of The Surgeon General, in a comment to the Board, opined that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of separation and recommended that the records not be corrected on a medical basis. 16. The Board, after considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, concluded the following: a. The applicant was performing duty at the time she was separated and could not have been found unfit. She has argued earlier that there was absolutely nothing wrong with her duty performance, that any accusations of inefficiency were reprisals for her rejection of the commander's homosexual advances. a. b. There is no evidence that, at the time of the discharge, the applicant was in any way disabled. c. The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency. It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Department of the Army purposes. 17. The applicant submitted an application to the ABCMR, dated 4 June 2003, (AR2003092497), requesting correction of her rank, type of discharge, and discharge reason. Her application was returned without action by the Army Review Boards Agency's (ARBA) Screening Team, on 19 November 2003, because her application was not clear as to what error(s) or documents needed correction. 18. The applicant submitted another application to the ABCMR, dated 7 March 2007, (AR20070003895), requesting reconsideration of her previous requests for removal of an Article 15 from her records and restoration of rank. Her request was returned without by the ABCMR on 15 August 2007, in accordance with Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR), paragraph 2-15b, because her request for reconsideration was not received within one year of the ABCMR's original decision. 19. The applicant submitted another application to the ABCMR, dated 25 April 2009, (AR20090008149), requesting reconsideration of her previous requests. Her request was returned without action by the ARBA's Case Management Division in accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-15b. 20. In connection with the processing of this case, a medical advisory opinion was obtained from the ARBA's Senior Medical Advisor. The following is a summary of the medical advisory opinion: a. The purpose of this medical review is to determine if the alleged medical condition warranted separation through medical channels or if the medical conditions were not considered during the separation process. b. A review of the applicant's electronic medical record (AHLTA) revealed no records (note: implementation began in 2003). The applicant's paper service treatment record was not available for review from the National Personnel Records Center. VA Request for Information (VA 70-3101-4), dated 23 April 1996, for service and medical records. a. c. A Report of Psychiatric Examination, dated 9 April 1982 with date of shows: "Diagnosis: No mental disorder. Pertinent History: This 25 year-old female was command referred for psychiatric evaluation pending probable administrative separation. SM [service member] blames personality conflicts as the source of her current difficulties. States she does an excellent job and is well liked by her coworkers. She received an Article 15 for having a man in her room, but now denies that this happened. She is largely unwilling to assume responsibility for these difficulties and is insistent on fighting a chapter 13. Command feels she is unmotivated, disrespectful and a marginal performer. She has no prior psychiatric history. Mental status: She seemed slightly anxious, but was otherwise alert and cooperative. She gave rather lengthy responses to questions and appeared to deny or rationalize her role in the difficulties. She denied depression. Her intelligence fell in the average range and there was no evidence of a thought disorder, hallucinations or ideas of reference. She seemed to have poor insight and judgment but was not suicidal. Findings and Conclusions: There is no evidence of any significant, ongoing psychopathology. Recommendation: SM is cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command." d. Limited review of VA records through the Joint Legacy Viewer with 34 listed problems (all VA-entered) including PTSD, distrust of all providers and the VA system, migraine, meningioma, sleep apnea, cervical spinal stenosis, cervical radiculopathy, left wrist pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, low back pain, osteoarthritis of knee, ankle/foot pain, obesity, hypertension, asthma, tubal ligation, allergic rhinitis, sinusitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and others. The applicant is currently VA service-connected at 100 percent overall (PTSD at 100 percent). e. The available record does not reasonably support that PTSD or another boardable behavioral health condition existed at the time of her military service. f. The applicant's medical conditions were duly considered during her separation processing. g. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. h. Based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health condition(s) for the offenses which led to her separation from the Army. a. 21. The medical advisory opinion was provided to the applicant to allow her the opportunity to provide additional evidence or a rebuttal. She responded and expressed her disagreement with the contents of the medical advisory opinion. She also stated the following: The PTSD remained after I got discharged. It still haunts me. It was made worse by my inability to get a job due to my type of discharge. No one would hire me. After my husband got out of prison we moved to Alabama to live on my parents' farm. After one year, we got divorced. How can a person, harassed like I was, given a bad discharge and not hired by anyone due to the discharge be expected to live and support children? This is the hell I had to live in the Army. How would you like it if someone that you did not want touching you did that every day you saw her at work? How would you like it if, since she was female, she could come into your barracks room anytime during the night and fondle you? How would you feel if this person was harassing you? Would you be able to sleep? Would you be able to function at work without sleep? Would you be happy at work and put forth your best effort if you spent all day trying to avoid from someone like her? I was on guard every night and day. She would come and do searches any time of the day or night. I was afraid that she would come there every night to touch me so I could not rest. She put me on extra duty and made me paint the outside of a three story building on a ladder where I could have fallen and killed the baby I was carrying. Imagine how you would feel if you were me in this situation. When I got put on house arrest awaiting my discharge, male guards were sent to guard me all day. They watched me shower, watched me pee, watched me poop, watched me change my clothes. My life would have been so much different if this woman had not been my boss at my command. I should have been allowed to be transferred away from my abuser as other Soldiers had been transferred. I was the victim of a crime! Why shouldn't I be compensated by the Army? They allowed this crime to happen by not listening to me, then made me suffer the rest of my life for the crime instead of the perpetrator suffering. The decision was made that the charges were false but I was not compensated for the money they took. Or the rank they took. Or all promotions I would have had by being able to go to another command and get promoted and retire. I was reprimanded on trumped-up charges and lost basically three stripes, being forced out as a PV1. Why was I not given this opportunity? I planned on making the Army my career. I was proud to be a Soldier. We came from a family of career Soldiers. I would have retired from the Army. 22. The applicant provided two letters from her attorney dated 10 September 1997 and 2 September 1998, indicating the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), paragraph 3-28 (Setting aside and restoration) states: a. Setting aside and restoration is an action whereby the punishment or any part or amount, whether executed or unexecuted, is set aside and any rights, privileges, or property affected by the portion of the punishment set aside are restored. Nonjudicial punishment is "wholly set aside" when the commander who imposed the punishment, a successor-in-command, or a superior authority sets aside all punishment imposed upon an individual under UCMJ, Article 15. In addition, the imposing commander or successor in command may set aside some or all of the findings in a particular case. If all findings are set aside, then the UCMJ, Article 15 itself is set aside and removed from the Soldier’s records. b. The basis for any set-aside action is a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, the imposition of the UCMJ, Article 15 or punishment has resulted in a clear injustice. "Clear injustice" means that there exists an unwaived legal or factual error that clearly and affirmatively injured the substantial rights of the Soldier. An example of clear injustice would be the discovery of new evidence unquestionably exculpating the Soldier. 2. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, the individual must be unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Performance of duty despite impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness. 3. Army Regulation 635-40 (Disability Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets 1. forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Paragraph 3-1 provides that the mere presence of 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 member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating. 4. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permit the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered physically unfit for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. 5. TRICARE is a program designed to provide health care services to people associated with the United States military in various different capacities. It caters to people, who are currently actively serving in the military forces to people who have retired from their posts in the military, their families and dependent persons, members of the National Guard and Reserve, recipients of the Medal of Honor (as well as their families), former spouses, as well as any other individual who has been enrolled in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). There are two main types of beneficiaries: sponsors (which includes people in service, retirees and members of the National Guard and Reserve) and family members (which includes any children or spouses who have been enrolled in DEERS). 6. SGLI is a program that provides low-cost term life insurance coverage to eligible Servicemembers. Individuals are automatically insured under full-time SGLI if the individual is one of the following: * active duty member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard * commissioned member of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the U.S. Public Health Service * cadet or midshipman of the U.S. military academies * * member, cadet, or midshipman of the Reserve Officers Training Corps engaged in authorized training and practice cruises * member of the Ready Reserve or National Guard and are scheduled to perform at least 12 periods of inactive training per year * servicemember who volunteers for a mobilization category in the Individual Ready Reserve DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant served on active duty from 26 November 1980 to 10 May 1982. She was discharged in the grade of E-2, in accordance with paragraph 13-4c of AR 635-200, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, due to unsuitability (apathy, defective attitude, or inability to expend effort constructively). She was assigned Separation Code "JMJ" and RE Code "3." 2. On 24 June 1994, the ADRB considered her discharge and found it improper and inequitable (too harsh) as to the reason and characterization of service. As a result, the ADRB voted to upgrade her discharge to fully honorable under the Secretarial Authority. The applicant was issued a new DD Form 214 that reflected her discharge on 10 May 1982, in the grade of E-2, in accordance with chapter 5 of AR 635-200, with an honorable discharge, due to Secretarial Authority. She was assigned Separation Code "JFF" and RE Code "3." 3. A CID ROI, dated 2 June 1997, shows the CID established that probable cause to believe the applicant's former CO committed the offense of Indecent Assault, when she was a member of the U.S. Army, and fondled the applicant's breast and buttocks. The CID also established probable cause to believe the applicant's former CO committed the offense of Cruelty and Maltreatment of a Subordinate, while she was the applicant's CO, and made numerous sexual advances towards the applicant, which she rejected. As a result, the CO ordered the applicant to perform extra duties, in an attempt to force her to yield to her sexual desires. 4. Based on the CID's findings, the ABCMR established on 17 June 1998 that: a. The applicant was sexually harassed by her CO and retaliation occurred. b. Based on the available evidence the applicant's misconduct and unsatisfactory performance was not entirely the product of retaliation. Therefore, granting her request for reinstatement to pay status and promotion is not warranted. a. c. There is no evidence to support that she was physically unable to perform her duties. d. Justice requires that it now be treated as if that were the case to the extent that the record NJP, letters of reprimand, and counseling statements should all be expunged. 5. The ABCMR corrected the applicant's records by: * expunging the record of NJP, letters of reprimand, and all negative counseling statements * voiding her 10 May 1982 discharge * issuing her a new Honorable Discharge Certificate and DD Form 214 showing that she was separated on 25 November 1984 at the completion of her 4-year enlistment and changing her RE code to RE-1 6. With respect to retroactive pay, when the Board voted to grant her service credit, it did so as a matter of justice, not as a matter of error. The Army's stance on pay is "pay for work performed." Because the applicant did not perform the service, she did not earn the pay. 7. With respect to compensation for crimes against her and PTSD, the Board correct records; it does not pay applicants. If as a result of a record correction, an applicant is entitled to pay, then the record correction is forwarded to the Defense Finance and Accounting Services for payment. In this case, the applicant has not shown what the crime is or what additional record correction she seeks. 8. With respect with her request for physical disability separation, a medical review of her records revealed the applicant did not have unfitting PTSD or a boardable behavioral health condition at the time of her separation. She met medical retention standards then. 9. As for TRICARE, this is a program that caters to active duty personnel, military retirees, and their eligible family members. Eligible personnel buy into the program. The applicant is neither on active duty nor a military retiree. If she believes she is eligible for enrollment, she should contact the TRICARE office. 1. 10. As for SGLI, this is an insurance program administered by the Army for active duty personnel and paid by Prudential upon death. The applicant is not on active duty. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//