RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 27 January 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003088077


         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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson
Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		Member
Mr. Lester Echols		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 reconsideration of her earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrade her general discharge to honorable and removal of her five nonjudical punishments (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with return of her forfeited pay. She also requests correction of: Item 11 (Primary Specialty, Title and Years and Months in Specialty); Item 25 (Separation Authority); Item 26 (Separation Code); and Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation). She also asks for removal of all counseling statements; removal of the Administrative Separation Board decision and "alleged" statements thereof; restitution of rights for "Honorable Discharge"; and revocation of improper discharge.

2. The applicant states that her discharge should be upgraded, her five NJPs should be removed with return of her forfeited pay, and that Items 11, 25, 26 and 28 of her DD Form 214 are incorrect. She also states that her Administrative Separation Board decision and the "alleged" statements therefore should be removed, that her rights should be restored, and that her discharge orders should be revoked. Her character of service and performance were not willful, nor drug, alcohol, or homosexual in relation to her character. The condition of "chronic fatigue" was the direct cause of weakened performance/misconduct. The effects of chronic fatigue did interfere with her performance of duty. The medical condition (disability) that was diagnosed in her service records show a diagnosis of "chronic fatigue" on 2 November 1981 which is not reflected on her discharge. She was also not informed of this diagnosis or any other possible medical problems that would define the difficulties that she was experiencing at the time.

3. She further states that this condition and its effects were not considered in the processing of her Article 15, UCMJ, or discharge. The Article 15's were given to show "willful misconduct" or "willful disobedience." The denial of pay to include additional entitlements forced a financial hardship on her dependent and herself, to include a poor credit rating. Her financial standing was also used to represent her character. She was never counseled on her discharge and what it meant to her as a veteran or as a civilian. She concludes that she was not given a "mental evaluation" before her discharge. She was asked three questions in front of a clinical assistant for three minutes, which was the extent of her mental evaluation.

4. The applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), several extracts of her medical records, and an additional statement to support her request.




5. The applicant provided an additional statement. She stated that it was very difficult to fight an invisible foe. The beating she endured from that battle should be classified as torture. While she was in service, she adhered to orders and performed her duties with honor and pride. Her physical handicap of "chronic fatigue" and its effect was something she did not have control over or knowledge of. The more effort she put forward, the more aggressive the effects of her condition became. She sought consultation with the company commander in the earliest stage of her condition. However, his response was "you are lazy, inept, and wanted an excuse for it." These words did not make a long lasting positive/negative effect on her. The commander was very generous with the Article 15's, forfeitures and promotions.

6. She attempted to see a civilian physician. She was informed that she was government property and would be breaking the chain of command as well as disobeying a direct order to be examined by a civilian physician. She was not provided rehabilitation options, a justifiable medical/mental evaluation, or any counsel on her discharge and its effect.

7. In 1993, she was diagnosed and hospitalized with "Graves Disease" and initiated a claim for that condition. Her claim was based on information from the diagnosing doctor and personal research of the condition. In her claim, fatigue was one of the many effects listed for this condition. She had it listed as one of the effects of "Grave Disease" because of the actual fatigue she was still having and the medical research stated it as an effect.

8. In November 2000, she prepared a reply to her claim and had the opportunity to review her records. She discovered that she was diagnosed as having "Chronic Fatigue" on 2 November 1981 with additional tests justifying her diagnoses. She and her service representative believe that these diagnoses would strengthen her chance of a favorable decision for "Graves Disease." She had applied for a service-connected condition, which was approved in November 2000. She continued to research her condition of "chronic fatigue" which made it clearer to her of what she was suffering from and the additional condition that it created was "Graves Disease." Her condition of "chronic fatigue" was changing her physical productivity and required other parts of her metabolic system to work harder.

9. She further stated that she would start out having a good day, feel physically fine, engage in physical training, and later get tired. She felt like all of the oxygen in her body had disappeared. She would become dizzy and her blood pressure would drop. After slowing down, her weakness would remain and would last for approximately 5 to 20 minutes. Upon returning to her room, she would pass out and become very weak. When she went to sleep, she would sleep for days or until someone woke her up. After awakening from her sleep, her fatigue would feel like she had not been to sleep at all. She experienced several other effects that progressed due to her fatigue. However, no one informed her that these physical effects would increase while she was in the service. At the time of discharge she was emotionally and physically stripped.

10. She felt that her commander had access to this information in 1981 and believed that he withheld this diagnosis so that he could justify her punishment and a negative discharge. To the best of her knowledge, the diagnosis was never in any form mentioned to her in the processing of her Article 15's, nor during the finalization of her discharge. Since her discharge in 1983, her condition of chronic fatigue has crippled her mentally and physically. She has endured failing health, several hospitalizations, and negative relationships in order to have someone assist her in her daily duties. She is unable to maintain gainful employment and has attempted suicide. She was hospitalized in 1993 and saved by the diagnosis of "Graves Disease," which relieved some of the mental doubts and anxiety. She was treated with medication; however, it did not help her fatigue and physical effects. Had her diagnosis been taken into consideration in 1981, she believed that her NJP's and general discharge would not have occurred and she would have received a fair and equitable discharge with attempts for rehabilitation.

11. In the evidence of record, of her previous case, she stated that any defense made was vocal, at the time of issuance of her Article 15's. She also stated that there were several typographical errors. Her 11 March 1982, Article 15 is a complete fabrication of her being disrespectful towards her supervisors during her service. She further states that she was not provided counsel prior to 20 December 1982. She was not present when her first sergeant testified, nor when the commander was recalled at her board appearance. She questioned her first sergeant's testimony. She stated that there was no logical way this would lead to a 1981 diagnosis, which she did not see until 2000.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2002079306 on 30 January 2003. In this document number, the request for an upgrade of the applicant's discharge and removal of her NJPs were denied.

2. The applicant’s military records show she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 29 May 1973, as an equipment maintenance clerk in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71T10. A review of her records shows she served as an equipment maintenance clerk (71T10) and as a material supply specialist in MOS 76R10.

3. Item 16 (Primary Specialty Number and Title) of the applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated 20 August 1976, shows the entry "71T20 EQUIPMENT, MAINTENANCE". She continued to serve in this position until she was honorably discharged on 20 August 1976.

4. She reenlisted on 16 April 1981, as a motor transport operator in MOS 64C10.

5. On 2 November 1981, the applicant was given a provisional diagnosis of "chronic fatigue" and additional tests were ordered. There is no final diagnosis in the evidence of record.

6. Item 11 of the applicant's DD Form 214, dated 19 January 1983, shows the entry "(P) [Primary] 64C10("(S) [Secondary] 76R10 MATERIAL CONTROL & ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS."

7. Item 25 (Separation Authority) of the applicant’s DD Form 214, dated 19 January 1983 shows the entry "Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200."

8. On 19 January 1983, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. She was issued a separation program designator (SPD) code of "JHJ."

9. The applicant's records contain several counseling statements as stated in her previous ABCMR board proceedings.

10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

11. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The regulation provides, in pertinent part, that the primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) and all additional military occupational specialties (MOS) served in for a period of one year or more, during the soldier's continuous active military service, will be entered in item 11 (Primary Specialty). For each MOS, list the title with the years and months served. For time determination, 16 days or more count as a month.





12. Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the SPD to be used for these stated reasons. The regulation shows that the SPD of "JHJ" as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is appropriate for involuntary discharge when the narrative reason for separation is "Unsatisfactory Performance."

13. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ), the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the Official Military Personnel File it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the proper authorities listed in the regulation. It also states that ABCMR documents that approve or deny a request will be filed on the Restricted fiche of the OMPF

14. Table 6-1 pertains to the composition of the MPRJ. It states, in pertinent part, that documents that form a basis for the separation, which includes counseling statements, will be filed in the local MPRJ.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant's records shows that she served as a motor transport operator in MOS 64C10 for a period of 1 year and 7 months during her second enlistment. She served as a material control specialist in her SMOS of 76R10 for a period of 1 year and 2 months during her first enlistment. Therefore, there is no basis to change item 11 of her DD Form 214, dated 19 January 1983, to show that she served in her SMOS for a period of 3 years, 2 months, and 22 days. Item 11 of her DD Form 214, dated 19 January 1983, is correct as currently constituted.

2. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The separation authority and narrative reason for separation on the applicant's DD Form 214, dated 19 January 1983 are correct as currently constituted.

3. The applicant was separated and assigned a Separation Code in accordance with regulations. The applicant has also failed to show, through the evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record, that the Separation Code of "JHJ" issued to her was incorrect.

4. The applicant's counseling statements, Administrative Separation Board decision, and alleged statements are properly filed in her MPRJ and OMPF in accordance with applicable regulations.
5. The applicant's request for restitution of rights for an "Honorable Discharge" and revocation of improper discharge were denied in her previous ABCMR Board proceedings and are reaffirmed.

6. While the applicant was provisionally diagnosed as having "chronic fatigue"; there is no evidence or indication that she suffered from "Graves Disease" while she was on active duty. A diagnosis of "Graves Disease" over 10 years after her discharge does not establish this link. There is no evidence of record to show that she was unable to perform her duties due to a medical condition. Her minor record of frequent misconducts led to her general discharge.

7. The applicant's statements have been taken into consideration. However, the evidence has failed to show that her condition of "chronic fatigue" that was diagnosed on 2 November 1981, was the direct cause of her weakened performance/conduct that led to her discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___ao___ ___ym___ ___le___ DENY APPLICATION

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2002079306, dated 30 January 2003.




                  ___Arthur A. Omartian___
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088077
SUFFIX
RECON	AR2002079306
DATE BOARDED	20040127
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830119
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 chapter 13
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	177
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.