RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           15 JULY 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003099127


      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             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Roger Able                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Marla Troup                   |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      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 physical disability retirement or separation.

2.  The applicant states that she now has shin splints and back trouble.
She did not have those conditions when she entered the service.

3.  The applicant provides the documents depicted herein.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 7 September 2000.
 Her report of medical examination completed prior to her enlistment shows
that she was medically fit with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.

2.  A 28 September 2000 medical record shows that she was treated at a
medical clinic at Fort Sill, Oklahoma for shin splints, and cold and flu
symptoms.

3.  In November 2000 she was assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia for training.

4.  A 27 November 2000 radiologic examination report of her bilateral
tibiae and fibulae shows that they were normal.

5.  A 4 December 2000 counseling statement shows that she verbally
expressed to her drill sergeant that she was feeling depressed.  She was
told to go on sick call the next day.  On 11 December 2000 she again stated
to her drill sergeant that she was depressed and that she was receiving
treatment for sleepwalking.  She was sent to the spiritual fitness center
for spiritual guidance and enrolled in an evening support group class by
the chaplain.  During that time she received a message confirming the death
of her grandmother, increasing her state of depression.  She was allowed to
depart early prior to Christmas due to the nature of the events at her
home.

6.  An 8 December 2000 medical report prepared by a physical therapy clinic
shows that the applicant was seen because of shin splints, which she had
for approximately three months and got worse while in training.  She ran
two miles then fell out.  Her condition was diagnosed as stress reaction
bilaterally and she was given a physical profile serial of 1 1 T2 1 1 1 for
stress reaction to her legs.

7.  A 20 December 2000 medical record prepared at Sebasticook Valley
Hospital in Pittsfield, Maine, shows that the applicant complained of
persistent back problems, indicating that she stated that she had been
experiencing cramps and aches in her low back since September 2000 and that
it started while she was in basic training and had persisted.  The record
indicates that she was ambulatory, alert, cooperative, moving about without
any apparent distress, and appeared to be well.  She had adequate range of
motion in the lumbar area, but did have diffuse tenderness to palpation all
the way across the lower lumbar area.  Her condition was diagnosed as
lumbar strain.

8.  A medical report indicates that the applicant was seen on 20 December
2000 because of headache and lower back pain.  The report indicated that
the back pain was associated with ?  (undecipherable) of legs.  The report
indicates that she had a history of back pain with onset two years ago.
The report indicates that the applicant had a history of seeing a
chiropractor who manipulated her back when she was a child.  She had an
accident two years ago when another person fell on her left side and she
sustained a right shoulder fracture, but denied having low back pain or
numbness resulting from the accident.  Her condition was diagnosed as low
back pain as indicated by an MRI finding of mild DDD (degenerative disc
disease).  The treating physician recommended a trial of physical therapy
and if that failed to improve her condition, a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB) and referral to orthopedics.

9.  A 22 January 2001 MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) of her lumbosacral
spine taken at John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell, Virginia, shows
that the applicant stated that she had a history of backache with her legs
going numb and that she also complained of headaches.  The MRI indicated
that the applicant had a central disc bulge at the T11-T12 level with
apparent mild extrinsic compression upon the lower thoracic cord; mild disc
bulges at the L3-L4 and the L4-L5 level with mild canal narrowing and mild
bilateral neural foraminal narrowing at the L4-L5 level – negative for a
tight spinal stenosis or significant neural foraminal narrowing at those
two levels; a suggestion of a left paracentral disc herniation at the L4-S1
level.

10.  A 29 January 2001 medical report shows that she was seen because of a
four-month history of low back pain at a physical therapy clinic.  Her
condition was diagnosed as DDD lumbar spine.

11.  A 29 January 2001 physical profile report shows her physical profile
serial of 1 1 T2 1 1 1 for low back pain.  A 5 February 2001 physical
profile report shows her physical profile of 1 1 T2 1 1 1 for mechanical
low back pain.  A 1 March 2001 physical profile report shows her physical
profile serial of 1 1 T3 1 1 1 for low back pain.

12.  An 8 January 2001 report of mental status evaluation shows that the
applicant's condition was diagnosed as depressive disorder, not otherwise
specified, and parasomnia, not otherwise specified (sleepwalking).  It
indicated that she also reported that she had persistent headaches.  The
report indicated that she had been seen since 5 December 2000 for symptoms
of depression and sleepwalking, and that her treatment had consisted of
medication and individual psychological treatment, to no avail.  It
indicated that she had reported a history of treatment for depression with
limited success.  The examining doctor stated that her difficulties were
indicative of a chronic pattern of symptoms and that her behavior was not
likely amenable to transfer, disciplinary action, training, or
reclassification.  He stated that it was unlikely that efforts to
rehabilitate or develop her into a satisfactory Soldier would be
successful.  He stated that she was mentally responsible, able to
distinguish right from wrong and had the mental capacity to understand and
participate in board proceedings.  He stated that she met the medical
standards for retention in the Army and that she was psychiatrically
cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.  He recommended
that she be administratively discharged.

13.  The applicant was counseled on 24 January 2001 because of her
inability to adapt to the military environment and her constant state of
depression.  The noncommissioned officer who counseled her stated that he
was recommending that she be separated from the Army.

14.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant's commanding officer informed the
applicant that he was initiating action to separate her from the Army under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, because of her
inability to adapt to military life and conform to standards.  He stated
that he was recommending that she receive an entry level discharge.

15.  The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that she had been
advised of the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, the rights
available to her and the effects of any action taken by her in waiving her
rights.  She declined to submit a statement in her own behalf.

16.  The applicant's commanding officer recommended to the separation
authority that the applicant be separated from the Army.  He stated that
the applicant had been severely depressed and was unable to focus on her
military career, and that she had received counseling, to no avail.

17.  On 8 February 2001 the separation authority approved the
recommendation and directed that her service be uncharacterized.

18.  A 13 February 2001 counseling report indicates that the applicant
stated on   6 February 2001 that she was feeling very depressed and that
she might hurt herself.  That report indicates that she was taken to Kenner
Army Hospital and then to Southside Hospital for severe depression, where
she remained until      12 February 2001.  She was scheduled for follow-up
counseling with continued support group meetings.

19.  The applicant was discharged on 1 March 2001 because of entry level
performance and conduct.  She had 5 months and 25 days of service.  Her
character of service was uncharacterized.

20.  On 4 June 2003 in an unanimous opinion, the Army Discharge Review
Board denied the applicant's request to change the character of her service
to honorable.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provides
for the separation of personnel in an entry level status for unsatisfactory
performance or conduct as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort
or a failure to adapt to the military
environment.  These provisions apply only to individuals whose separation
processing is started within 180 days of entry into active duty.  An
uncharacterized separation is mandatory under this chapter.

22.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability
evaluation system and sets 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.  It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to
document a Soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is
affected by the Soldier’s status.  A decision is made as to the Soldier’s
medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501,
chapter 3.  If the Medical Evaluation Board determines the Soldier does not
meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the soldier
to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

23.  Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of
physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army.  It is a
fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity,
and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers who are referred to
the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the Soldier against the
physical requirements of the Soldier’s particular office, grade, rank or
rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the Soldier; and to make
findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a Soldier to be
separated or retired because of physical disability.

24.  Army Regulation 635-40 states in pertinent part 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was treated for shin splints and back pain during her
five month period of active duty.  Doctors treated her conditions; however,
there is no evidence that her medical conditions required consideration by
a medical board.  To the contrary, the evidence indicates that she was
unable to adapt to the Army; consequently, her discharge was appropriate.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and
regulations.  The character of her discharge was in accordance with the
regulations.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of her request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RA ___  __JA  ___  ___MT __  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.





            _____Roger Able_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003099127                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040715                                |
|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]