RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:

      BOARD DATE:            3 May 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040004542


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Diane J. Armstrong            |     |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, in effect, that the narrative reason for her
discharge be changed to medical.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she received two Line of Duty
determinations while she was serving on active duty during her last tour.
The first was for a car accident that was not her fault.  This accident
caused her to be knocked unconscious and resulted in damage to her right
shoulder, neurological damage, and two herniated disks in her back.  The
second LOD was concerning a bleeding ulcer that developed that nearly
caused her death.  She claims this condition resulted in her
hospitalization in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).  It further resulted in
her losing 7 pints of blood.  She claims her physicians documented that
this condition was the result of the abuse she received from her battalion
commander between September 2003 and May 2004.  She now requests that her
discharge be changed to medical retirement from active duty and that she be
provided all benefits associated with that status.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her separation document (DD Form 214),
and of LOD investigations in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows she was appointed a second lieutenant in
the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 27 May 1989.  It further shows she
was a member of the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) from 18 August
1989 through 2 August 1990.

2.  On 2 November 1999 , while serving in the Individual Ready Reserve
(IRR), the applicant was promoted to captain.  On 27 January 2000, she was
transferred from the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to a USAR Troop Program
Unit (TPU).

3.  On 15 August 2001, the applicant was ordered to active duty for two
years to fulfill her active duty requirement and was assigned to the
Phoenix Recruiting Battalion, United States Army Recruiting Command
(USAREC).

4.  A Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status (DA Form 2173),
dated 31 March 2003, indicates that the applicant was involved in an
automobile accident on 4 January 2003 in Scottsdale, Arizona.  As a result
of this accident, she sustained the following injuries:  cervical strain,
lumbar strain, closed head trauma, abrasions, and nasal bone
fracture/break.  This document confirms the applicant’s injuries were
incurred in the LOD.
5.  A DA Form 2173, dated 27 June 2003, is also on file in the applicant’s
record. This document shows that the applicant was admitted to the hospital
on 17 May 2003, for a bleeding ulcer in her stomach.  This document
confirms the applicant’s illness was determined to have been incurred in
the LOD.

6.  The applicant’s record contains no medical documents indicating that
she suffered from a disabling condition that would have warranted her
processing through the Army Physical Disability System (APDES), or that she
was found medically unfit for continued service due to the illness and
injuries documented in the two DA Forms 2173 on file in her record.

7.  On 14 August 2003, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty (REFRAD) voluntarily, under the provisions of paragraph 2-7, Army
Regulation 600-8-24, upon the completion of her required active service.
At this time she was transferred to the USAR Control Group, St. Louis,
Missouri.  The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms she completed a total of
2 years of active duty service during the period covered by the separation
document.  As of the date of her application to the Board, she was still an
active member of the USAR serving in a TPU.

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System
(PDES) 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 or her office, grade, rank, or rating.


9.  Chapter 3 of the same regulation provides guidance on presumptions of
fitness.  It states 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 Soldier
reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade,
rank, or rating.  Separation by reason of disability requires processing
through the PDES.

10.  Chapter 4 of the same regulation contains guidance on processing
through the PDES, which includes the convening of a Medical Evaluation
Board (MEB) to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations
insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.  If the MEB determines
a Soldier does not meet retention standards, the case will be referred to a
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

11.  Chapter 4 of the same regulation further states that the PEB evaluates
all cases of physical disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army.
The PEB investigates the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable
permanency of the disability of Soldiers whose cases are referred to the
board.  It also evaluates the physical condition of the Soldier against the
physical requirements of the Soldier's particular office, grade, rank, or
rating.  Finally, it makes findings and recommendations required by law to
establish the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because
of physical disability.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes
the officer transfers from active duty to the Reserve Component (RC) and
discharge functions for all officers on active duty for 30 days or more.
Paragraph 1-11 outlines the eligibility criteria for voluntary separation.
It states, in pertinent part, that when an officer is medically
incapacitated from further military service due to a physical or mental
condition, the officer's case will be delayed until he or she recovers or
the officer is processed through medical channels.  Paragraph 2-7 contains
the rules for processing the voluntary REFRAD due to the expiration of an
active duty commitment.  Officers are required to submit applications for
REFRAD not earlier than 12 months or less than 6 months prior to desired
release date.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that she should have been separated for medical
reasons based on the outcome of a LOD determination, and the supporting
documents she provided were carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record provides no indication that the applicant
suffered from a medically disqualifying condition that would have supported
her processing through the Army PDES at the time of her separation from
active duty.  The record does show she was treated for the injuries and
illnesses she incurred in the LOD while she was still on active duty.
There is no medical evidence that suggests her medical conditions rendered
her permanently unfit to perform her military duties, or that it supported
her disability processing through the Army PDES.  LOD determinations alone
are not a sufficient basis to conclude a Soldier suffers from a medically
disqualifying condition rendering him/her physically unfit for further
military service.

3.  The applicant’s record further confirms she was separated under the
provisions of paragraph 2-7, Army Regulation 600-8-24, by reason of
completion of required active service.  This separation is voluntary and
required the applicant’s request prior to implementation.
4.  The evidence of record also gives no indication that the applicant was
denied further active duty service, or that she was involuntarily
separated.   Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all
requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s rights were
fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant
continues to serve as a member of the active USAR, which attests to her
ability to continue to perform the military duties of her office and grade.


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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___DJA _  __PHM__  ___SLP__  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.




            ____Shirley L. Powell________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004542                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/05/03                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2003/08/214                             |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 600-8-4                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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