RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:



      BOARD DATE:           17 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040005089


      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. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John E. Denning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 that her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show that she was honorably
separated due to a physical disability in lieu of being discharged with a
general discharge (GD) for misconduct.

2.  The applicant states that medical reasons impaired her ability to serve
and that it was not misconduct.  The anti-depression medication that she
was prescribed caused her to experience mood swings and extreme tiredness.
She requested separation due to her medical condition and she was denied.
She experienced domestic violence and was administered nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for defending herself.  She was also falsely accused of
(child abuse) striking a child under the age of 16 with a belt buckle and
administered a second NJP when she rendered reasonable punishment to the
child.  She was only 3 months away from completing her full tour of duty
when she was separated with a GD that has caused her difficulty in entering
the workforce, and limited her ability to support her family.

3.  The applicant provides in support of her request: a copy of her DD Form
214; medical documents; a statement from the Senior Chaplain Clinician,
Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, dated 4 February 2003; and an undated
statement that was written by the mother of the allegedly abused child.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  All of the documents provided by the applicant were available and taken
into consideration during the separation process.

2.  On 29 September 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a
period of 4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS)
91B, Medical Specialist.  The applicant completed the training requirements
and was awarded MOS 91B.  On 12 April 2000, she was assigned to Tripler
Army Medical Center, Hawaii with duties in her MOS.

3.  On 20 October 2000, military police were called to the applicant's
military quarters after it was alleged the applicant had hit her husband in
the head with a wooden board and tried to attack him with a knife.  On the
same date, the applicant was put on temporary barracks restriction for her
own safety.

4.  On 4 January 2001, NJP under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for
committing assault upon her husband by striking him on the head with a
dangerous weapon (a wooden plank) on 20 October 2000.  Her punishment
included a forfeiture of $263.00 pay for 1 month (suspended) and 14 days of
extra duty.

5.  A Criminal Investigation (Division) Command (CID) Report reveals that,
in January 2003, the applicant was investigated for child abuse after the
Youth Center at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii reported to military police
that, on
17 September 2002, the applicant had abused a child that a coworker left in
her care by hitting him with a belt and belt buckle to the point that
welts/marks were left on his body.  The final report is not available.

6.  On 6 March 2003, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation for
consideration of a discharge due to a personality disorder.  The evaluation
consisted of a clinical interview and psychometric testing.  The following
diagnosis was made in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders IV:  AXIS I:  Adjustment disorder, chronic with mixed
anxiety depressed mood, occupational problem.  AXIS II:  Personality
disorder not otherwise specified.  The applicant's behavior was determined
to be characterized by suspicion; she was fully alert; fully oriented; her
mood was depressed; her thought process was clear; her thought content was
normal; and her memory was good.  She was also determined to be mentally
responsible; able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right;
and she had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board
proceedings.  The applicant was determined to meet the psychiatric criteria
for expeditious separation.  She was determined not to have a biological
illness and her illness was not considered a mental disorder, her illness
was determined not to be amenable for treatment.  The examining
psychiatrist determined the applicant was not fit for duty due to her long
history of interpersonal difficulties, emotional impulsivity, identity
disturbance, inappropriate displays of anger, parasucidiality and
transient, stress-related dissociative symptoms.  Further it was determined
that the applicant had required inpatient psychiatric care in the past
(timeframe unknown).  The applicant's rigid, inflexible, pervasive and
pathological personality structure was not conducive to further military
service.  She never became invested in a psychiatric treatment program; she
was noncompliant with medication recommendations, often missing
appointments.  The applicant expressed a desire to be separated from the
military.  The examining psychiatrist believed the applicant was a
liability to the military and would hinder the accomplishment of any
mission.  The recommendation was expeditious separation.

7.  On the same date, the applicant was issued a temporary Physical Profile
due to adjustment disorder/personality disorder.  The profile stated no
deployments; no weapons; and no ammunition.  She was otherwise cleared for
duty.  The profile expired on 5 June 2003.
8.  On 11 March 2003, NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, was
imposed against the applicant for unlawfully striking a child under the age
of 16 years on his legs with a belt.  Her punishment included reduction
from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $764.00 pay per month
for 2 months and 45 days of extra duty (both suspended until 7 September
2003).

9.  On 9 May 2003, the applicant was officially notified that she was being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army
Regulation
635-200, for a pattern of misconduct.  The commander cited as the bases for
the separation action the above misconduct offenses and that the applicant
consistently failed to be at her appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed, and that she had been disrespectful towards the hospital staff
and supervisors.

10.  On 14 May 2003, the applicant consulted with a legal representative
and acknowledged that she understood the ramifications associated with
receiving a less than honorable discharge.  She was not entitled to have
her case heard by an administrative separation board.

11.  On 16 May 2003, the applicant submitted a statement in which she
requested a GD.  The applicant indicated that throughout her military
career a psychiatrist had treated her due to an adjustment disorder and
that she had taken anti-depressants and sought guidance from the Family
Advocate and available chaplains.  She stated that her ability to focus and
remember decreased and that this caused problems at home and at work.  She
and her husband had some problems that were resolved through anger
management and marriage counseling.  She indicated that she did not
intentionally harm the child that had been left in her care and that she
had appropriately punished him.  She also indicated that she had
experienced a lack of support by her chain of command and at home.  Due to
a financial hardship, her husband was required to return to the United
States to secure a job and that she was left alone to care for her four
children, work and attend college.  She also stated that she had requested
a discharge due to her medical condition.  Her chain of command told her
that she did not meet the criteria for medical separation and she believed
her suicidal and violent thoughts were not taken seriously and her request
was denied.  Her stress, depression and anger continued to grow until she
was told that she was being separated for misconduct.

12.  The applicant's unit commander recommended separation under the
provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of
misconduct with a GD.  On 22 May 2003, the intermediate commander
recommended separation with a GD.  On the same date, the approval authority
waived further rehabilitation and approved the applicant's separation in
accordance with chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, due to a pattern of
misconduct with a GD.
13.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that on 24 June 2003, she was
separated with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation
635-200 for misconduct-pattern of misconduct.  She had completed 3 years,
8 months and 26 days of active military service.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities,
desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that
rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  Army policy
states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD
under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence available shows no evidence of arbitrary or capricious
actions by the applicant's chain of command.  The applicant's
administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable
regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would have
jeopardized her rights.  Both the reason for separation and the
characterization are appropriate considering the facts of the case.

2.  The approval authority determined the applicant's mental status was not
the substantiating contributing cause of her misconduct that formed the
basis for the proposed separation.  The approval authority also found no
circumstances that warranted disability processing and approved the
applicant's separation in accordance with chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-
200, due to misconduct.
The applicant has established no basis for separation due to physical
disability.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jed___  ___jrs__  __mjf___  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.



                 John E. Denning
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005089                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050317                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20030624                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 14                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0135                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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