RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           19 AUGUST 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003098017


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings 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:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests disability retirement or separation.

2.  The applicant states that her command interfered with the processing of
her proposed MEB (medical evaluation board) by substituting a “fit for
duty” statement for the temporary physical profile that was issued by a
military physician.  She states that the substitution allowed her command
to subvert the MEB process and administratively separate her without any
consideration given for her disability conditions.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty in 1988 after serving as a member of the United States Army
Reserve.  At the time of her entry on active duty she had one child who was
in the custody of her (the applicant’s) grandmother.

2.  A May 1994 line of duty status notes that the applicant was involved in
a motor vehicle accident on 21 March 1994.  She was treated for probable
muscle strain at Darnall Army Community Hospital at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina.  There were no service medical records available to the Board, or
provided by the applicant, beyond the 1994 line of duty report.

3.  In April 1996 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-5.  At the time
of her 1996 reenlistment action, the applicant’s reenlistment documents
noted that she had a total of three children.  There was no indication on
the documents that she was married at the time of her reenlistment action.
The applicant’s 1999 reenlistment action also listed three children, but no
spouse.

4.  Performance evaluation reports for rating periods ending in January
1998, December 1998, and June 1999 noted that the applicant had a physical
profile but that the profile did not hinder her performance of duty.  The
applicant performed duties in the administrative arena.  A copy of the
physical profile was not in records available to the Board.

5.  Performance evaluation reports for rating periods ending in October
199, and October 2000 indicated that the applicant successfully passed the
APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test).  Her October 2000 performance evaluation
report noted that she scored 251 points on her October 2000 APFT.
6.  On 30 October 2001 the applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-8, for parenthood.
Documents associated with her separation processing were not available to
the Board.  Her separation document notes that she was separated in the
grade of E-5, that she had approximately 13 years of active Federal
service, and that she received more than $16000.00 in separation pay.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-8 provides for the involuntary
separation of soldiers when their parental obligations interfere with
fulfillment of their military responsibilities.  As with all involuntary
separation actions, the soldier is permitted to consult with legal counsel
and submit factors or statement in their own behalf.

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 states that disability compensation is not an
entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury;
rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they
can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical
disability incurred or aggravated in service.  When a solider is being
processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability,
continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or
grade until the soldier is scheduled for separation, is an indication that
the applicant is fit.

9.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for a medical
condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.
An individual's medical condition, although not considered medically
unfitting 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
applicant’s administrative separation for parenthood was appropriate and
completed in accordance with appropriate rules and regulations.

2.  The applicant’s contention that because she may have had disabling
conditions that she should have been medically retired or separated is
without foundation.  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant
continued to perform her military duties and routinely passed the APFT.

3.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which
confirms that she was physically unfit to perform her duties at the time of
his separation.

4.  The evidence of record indicates she did not have any medically
unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.
Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or
separation.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___FE___  ___CG__  ___WP __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            _____Fred Eichorn_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003098017                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040819                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]