RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           13 January 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084174


      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. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Lana E. McGlynn               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Roger W. Able                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |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 the expunction from her Official Military
Personnel File (OMPF) of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period
2000-10-25 through 2001-06-01.

2.  The applicant states the subject OER is unfair, and is both
substantively and administratively inaccurate.

3.  The applicant provides:  a copy of her separation orders, dated 9
October 2001, discharging her from active duty; a copy of her DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty; a copy of the subject
OER; a copy of a 7-page Psychiatric Outpatient Medical Evaluation Board
transcript which found her unfit for continued service; a copy of a 3-page
psychiatric evaluation from the Department of Psychiatry, University of
South Florida, with two transmittal letters; a copy of a 30 July 2001
request for continuance on active duty; a copy of a rating formula [not
further identified] for anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa; a copy of a
26 June 2001 consultation note from a medical doctor in Chevy Chase,
Maryland, along with the doctor's 1-page resume; copies of pages 594 and
595, Eating Disorders; a copy of an 11 July 2001 letter from the
applicant's attorney to the President, Medical Evaluation Board; and a copy
of a 19 December 2002 memorandum from Chief, Appeals and Corrections
Branch, US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), subject:  Officer
Evaluation Report Appeal (20001025-20010601).

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests the removal from the applicant's military records of
the Officer Evaluation Report for the period 25 October 2000 through 1 June
2001.

2.  Counsel states that, while a cadet at the United States Military
Academy, the applicant developed an eating disorder.  She was treated and
determined to be fit for commissioning as a Second Lieutenant, Military
Police Corps.  Following branch training, she was posted to her first
permanent duty assignment where her eating disorder reappeared and became
unmanageable.

3.  Counsel adds that, concurrent with her eating disorder, the applicant
also engaged in self-mutilation by cutting herself.  When this activity was
brought to the attention of her chain of command, she was counseled and
agreed to tell her company or battalion commanders whenever she felt the
urge to mutilate herself.
Within 2 days of making this agreement, she once again cut herself and was
sent to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center for psychiatric evaluation.  She
was then medically evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC)
where she underwent medical evaluation board processing that found her
unfit for continued service based upon an EPTS (existed prior to service)
condition.

4.  Counsel states that the applicant was given the subject OER upon her
reassignment to WRAMC.  He contends that the OER is administratively
incorrect in that:  the through date is 1 June 2001; the report is shown in
Part IId as "referred," but the senior rater in Part VIIc states that the
applicant did not complete DA Form 67-9-1 (OER Support Form).  He adds that
Army Regulation (AR) 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System) imposes
no requirement that the rated officer be physically present to complete
this form.  Had the applicant been allowed to complete it, she could have
provided relevant information pertaining to her medical condition from
which a balanced evaluation could have been made.

5.  Counsel states that the subject OER is not an accurate reflection of
the applicant's performance.  Both the rater and senior rater indicated
through block checks that her performance was unsatisfactory and that she
should not be promoted; however, both raters could have checked blocks
marked "Other" while offering an explanation.  Both raters manifested the
applicant's illness as a lack of integrity and honor, rather than
characterizing it as a medical condition.  This proves that the OER lacks
objectivity, accuracy, and fairness.

6.  Counsel states that the applicant did not seek removal from active
duty, but the physical evaluation system denied her temporary disability
retirement and denied her request to remain on active duty.

7.  Counsel provides a 4-page letter to the Army Board for Correction of
Military records (ABCMR) with Tabs A - J.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is no longer on active duty.  At the time of the subject
OER, she was a Second Lieutenant, having been commissioned upon graduation
from the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York on 27 May
2000.

2.  The applicant's first permanent duty assignment following completion of
the Military Police (MP) Officer Basic Course was with the 709th MP
Battalion, Hanau, Germany.  She initially served as the Executive Officer
(XO) of HHD (Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment), 709th MP Battalion.
 At some point in time, she was informed that she would be transferred to a
line company with duties as an MP Platoon Leader.

3.  The applicant informed her chain of command that she was, at that time,
incapable of assuming a Platoon Leader assignment because she had an eating
disorder and had engaged in forms of mild self-mutilation.  She requested
6 months to get her medical problems under control before taking a platoon.
 Her chain of command agreed and asked her to enter into a contract, or
promise, not to do self-harm.  They specifically asked her to come to them
should she feel an urge to harm herself.  The applicant agreed to so inform
her chain of command; however, she almost immediately reneged on that
agreement by inflicting superficial cuts on her wrists.

4.  The applicant was sent to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (Germany)
for treatment, and from there she was evacuated to WRAMC on or about 4
March 2001.  At WRAMC, she was diagnosed with:  an eating disorder, not
otherwise specified (NOS), manifested by recurrent episodes of purging
behaviors; a depressive disorder, NOS, manifested by depressed mood,
decreased energy, and feelings of hopelessness; and a personality disorder,
NOS, with dependent, histrionic and borderline traits manifested by
difficulty making decisions, needing help in assuming responsibility,
difficulty expressing disagreement, taking excessive measures to obtain
nurturance and support, a desire to be the center of attention, unstable
self-image, and recurrent self-mutilation.  She was determined to be
medically unacceptable for retention and was referred to the Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) process.

5.  The PEB process led to a determination to separate the applicant by
reason of a physical disability which existed prior to her service (EPTS).
She requested continuation on active duty, but her request was denied.  On
23 October 2001, she was honorably discharged while assigned to the WRAMC
Medical Holding Company.

6.  When it became apparent that the applicant would not be returning to
her unit in Germany, her chain of command initiated the subject OER.  The
OER was accomplished while the applicant was not physically present in
Germany, covering 4 rated months during the period 25 October 2000 through
1 June 2001. In Part IVa (Army Values), the rater indicated that the
applicant did not adhere to the Army's code of values, nor was she honest
in word and deed.  The rater also indicated that the applicant did not
possess the requisite emotional attributes of an officer (Part IVb.1.), or
the necessary conceptual skills demonstrating sound judgment, critical
thinking, and moral reasoning (Part IVb.2.).

7.  In Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation), the rater categorized
the applicant's duty performance as "UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, DO NOT
PROMOTE" stating:  that she reneged on her promise to seek help should
she feel an urge to cut herself; that she did not possess the necessary
emotional constraints to perform her duties; that her honor and integrity
were placed in question by her failure to honor her contract with her rater
(to seek help when faced with self-mutilation urges).

8.  The applicant's senior rater, in Part VII of the subject OER, checked
the block marked "DO NOT PROMOTE" and stated:  that she was overcome by an
inability to take responsibility and accomplish missions due to
psychological problems; that after being enrolled in "local care," she
began to mutilate herself; and that even after promising to seek help when
faced with a desire to perform self-mutilation, she reneged on that
promise.  The senior rater checked the block marked "BELOW CENTER OF MASS -
DO NOT RETAIN" in Part VIIb (Potential).

9.  Because the applicant was not present in Germany when her OER was
written, she did not submit a DA Form 67-9-1 (OER Support Form).  She was
contacted and asked to complete the form at WRAMC and mail it to her rater
in Germany, but she did not do so.  Also because the OER was adverse, it
was referred to the applicant, but she did not submit a rebuttal, nor did
she request a commander's inquiry.

10.  The applicant appealed the subject OER to the Officer Special Review
Board (OSRB) on 6 June 2002.  The applicant appealed on the same bases as
her appeal to this Board.  On 19 December 2002, the OSRB notified her that
her appeal had been denied.  The OSRB contacted the applicant's rater,
senior rater, and psychiatrist for information.

      a.  The rater stated that the applicant could have avoided problems
if she had taken her prescribed medications, but she did not.  The rater
stated that the applicant demonstrated a lack of honor and integrity:  (1)
in breaking her agreement with him to seek help when she felt a need to
mutilate herself, and (2) in other duty-related incidents where she was
untruthful.

      b.  The senior rater stated he repeatedly attempted to get the
applicant to submit an OER Support Form, but she failed to comply.  The
senior rater said that his primary goal with the subject OER was to ensure
that the applicant not be allowed to remain on active duty.  Although he
felt that she was a nice person, he did not believe her to be a good
officer.  He stated that her deceitfulness, lies, and lack of dependability
caused him to lose trust in her.

      c.  The psychiatrist, citing patient confidentiality, would only
state that a patient diagnosed with an eating disorder such as the
applicant's could have entered into, and complied with the terms of an
agreement to seek help with feelings of self-mutilation; that such a person
was not psychotic, had possession of her reason, and could have honored the
agreement.

11.  The OSRB determined that the applicant was mentally capable of
entering into an agreement with her raters and her breaking of the
agreement was certainly an issue of honor and integrity.  The OSRB also
found, however, that both raters felt that the applicant was untruthful in
other areas in her duty performance and that their mistrust of her was not
solely related to her medical problems.  The OSRB stated that the intention
of the rater and senior rater was to ensure that the applicant did not
remain on active duty and the ratings supported that intention.  The
applicant was asked repeatedly to provide a completed OER Support Form in
order to provide her input into the rating process.  The applicant declined
to make such input; the system did not deny her the opportunity to do so.

12.  Army Regulation (AR) 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System)
prescribes the officer evaluation function of the military personnel
system.  It is linked to AR 600-8 and provides principles of support,
standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work
required in the field to support the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and
Officer Evaluation Reporting System (OERS).  It provides, in pertinent
part, that the “Other” box in Part Va of DA Form 67-9 is for cases that do
not fit the promotion recommendations that are given.  For example, this
box may be used for warrant officers in grade CW5 [the highest grade].  The
rater may use the “Other” box for colonels (0-6) if he or she wishes to
recommend retention on active duty without advocating promotion to
brigadier general.  The “Other” box may also be used for those reports made
according to paragraph 3-45 [officer failing selection for promotion], if
the rater decides it is appropriate.

13.  AR 623-105 also provides the “Period Covered” (Part Ii on DA Form 67-
9) is the period extending from the day after the “Thru” date of the last
report to the date of the event causing the report to be written.  The
rating period is that period within the “Period Covered” during which the
rated officer serves in the same position under the same rater who is
writing the report.  The “Period Covered” and the rating period always end
on the same date (the “Thru” date of the OER or Academic Evaluation Report
(AER).  However, the beginning date of the rating period may not be the
same as that of the “Period Covered” (the “From” date).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Contrary to the contention of the applicant and her counsel, the
subject OER is administratively correct.

      a.  The period covered by the report began on 25 October 2000, the
day after the "THRU" date on her previous report (an Academic Evaluation
Report ending on 24 October 2000).  Following a medical determination at
WRAMC that the applicant would not be returning to her unit, the "THRU"
date on the subject OER was established as 1 June 2001 by her unit in
Germany.

      b.  The applicant's chain of command requested that she complete a DA
Form 67-9-1 and forward it to them to assist in her evaluation.  The
applicant, for reasons unknown, did not take advantage of the opportunity
and the OER was properly completed without benefit of support form input.

      c.  Part Va was properly completed when the rater chose the third box
(UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, DO NOT PROMOTE) over the fourth box (OTHER).
The “Other” box is only used for cases that do not fit the three promotion
recommendations that are given.

2.  The contention that the subject OER is substantively inaccurate relates
to the issue of the applicant's character and whether or not her integrity
and honesty shortcomings are a function of her medical/psychological
fitness.  The applicant's raters both commented on her failure to honor a
verbal contract as indicative of a lack of integrity and honesty.
Competent medical authority [the applicant's psychiatrist at WRAMC] has
stated that the applicant's eating disorder did not inhibit her capability
to enter into, and comply with, such an agreement.

3.  The applicant was assigned to HHD, 709th MP Battalion, Hanau, Germany.
She was referred to Army medical authorities in Germany because of an
eating disorder and a desire to self-mutilate.  Given a medical treatment
regimen, she returned to duty and her chain of command sought assurances
from her that she would seek their help should she have an impulse to harm
herself.  She agreed, but did not comply; after only 2 days, she cut
herself again.  Army values define integrity as " do[ing] what's right,
legally and morally."  Honor is defined as living up to all the Army values
[emphasis added].  The applicant, by failing to abide by her agreement with
her chain of command, showed a lack of integrity and, thus, a lack of
honor.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lem___  __rwa___  __phm___  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.




                 Lana E. McGlynn
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003084174                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040113D                               |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |111.0005                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |