RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            DECEMBER 14, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:     AR2004103323


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |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 that he be reinstated to the rank and pay grade
of sergeant first class (E-7).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was reduced in rank as a
result of a medical condition that was beyond his control.  He states that
he was mentally and physically assaulted during his second tour of duty in
Germany and that he was diagnosed with residual schizophrenia and
adjustment disorder.  He states that he was denied his desire to retire
from the Army with pride and that his command consistently and unjustly
ignored his medical records; his medical diagnosis; his psychiatric
profile; and his health and welfare.  He concludes by stating that chain of
command choose to punish and isolate him for displaying symptoms that were
beyond his control.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application a copy of his
Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214); a copy of the orders
reducing him from sergeant first class to staff sergeant; a copy of the
order assigning him to the Medical Holding Detachment at Fort Hood, Texas;
copies of portions of his Army medical records; copies of portions of his
military personnel records; a copy of his reduction packet; a copy of a
letter from the United States Postal Service dated 15 April 1988, informing
him that he was found to be medically unsuitable for the position of City
Carrier; a copy of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision
dated 31 July 1989; and a copy of proceedings conducted by a board of
officers dated 17 February 1984.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be reinstated
to the rank of sergeant first class, because he was unjustly mentally and
physically assaulted while he was in Germany which resulted in his
erroneous reduction.  However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to
support this claim.

2.  After carefully evaluating the applicant’s entire record of service,
the Board concludes that he was reduced to staff sergeant as a result of
his own misconduct and that the reduction actions were properly
accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the
time.  Therefore, the Board finds that it would not be appropriate to
reinstate him to the rank of sergeant first class at this time.

3.  The administration reduction board proceedings show that the board was
conducted in accordance with the applicable regulation.  The findings and
recommendations of the board were approved by the proper convening
authority and, lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes
government regularity in the conduct of the administrative reduction board
and in the entire reduction process.

4.  It is clear the applicant began experiencing mental problems in March
1982, when he was hospitalized and diagnosed by physicians as having an
adjustment disorder with work inhabitation.  However, the evidence does not
establish that this was the only or even the primary factor for his poor
duty performance and ultimate relief from his position.  The record
contains a Relief for Cause EER and the rater on this report categorized
his overall performance as unsatisfactory.  The rater supported this
evaluation with a recommendation that he not be promoted.  In the opinion
of the Board, this satisfies the regulatory criteria that a reduction for
inefficiency be based on a pattern of displayed inefficiencies.
2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  On 25 May 1965, he enlisted in the Army in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for
3 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training
as a first cook.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous
reenlistments.

4.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 25 September 1965 and to the
pay grade of E-3 on 1 February 1966.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-
4 on 31 May 1966; to pay grade E-5 on 27 October 1967; to pay grade E-6 on
1 September 1975 and to pay grade E-7 on 1 October 1979.

5.  Inpatient Treatment Record Coversheet shows that the applicant, was in
Germany on 2 March 1982, when he was hospitalized and diagnosed by
physicians as having an adjustment disorder with work inhabitation; acute,
with decreased performance on the job, anxiety, dizziness and weakness.  He
was also diagnosed with chronic rhinitis.  The coversheet shows that he was
returned to duty on 4 March 1982.

6.  Inpatient Treatment Record Coversheet shows that the applicant was a
patient at the United States Air Force Region Hospital, Sheppard Air Force
Base, Texas, on 4 November 1982, when he was diagnosed with residual
schizophrenia, moderate, treated unimproved, manifested by blunted affect,
psychomotor retardation and poor interpersonal relationships.  He was
further diagnosed as having marked stress and a history of chronic
rhinitis, aggravated by the high humidity level of his place of active
duty.  He had an undetermined predisposition and a severe impairment for
further military duty.  The admitting officer recommended that the
applicant be transferred to Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls, Texas.

7.  In a Narrative Summary (Clinical Resume) dictated on 30 November 1982,
the applicant’s condition and prognosis were clinically stable at that
time.  His prognosis for military life was satisfactory.  He was competent
for pay purposes and to handle his own financial affairs.  The attending
psychiatrist determined that he had achieved the optimum benefit of
hospitalization in a military setting.  The psychiatrist diagnosed the
applicant as having an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, which was
in remission and acute rhinitis, which was improved. The psychiatrist also
determined that the severity of the applicant’s psychosocial stressor was
moderate and he noted that the applicant had been stationed in Germany, far
away from his family.  The psychiatrist recommended that he be discharged
to duty with a physical profile of S2.  He further recommended that,
considering his motivation and interest, the applicant should be considered
for continuation on active duty with station at a duty assignment with
psychiatric capabilities for follow-up on an outpatient basis.  The
psychiatrist suggested that he be kept in the Continental United States as
his depression might have happened again if he were to be stationed
overseas.

8.  The records show that the applicant remained in the Continental United
States and was assigned as a food service sergeant at Fort Sill, Oklahoma
when he was counseled by his first sergeant on 13 April 1983, for failure
to deliver chow to Headquarters, Headquarters Detachment on time.  He was
informed that his behavior was not in the best interest of the troops or
the noncommissioned officers corps and that he seemed to have a lack of
concern for the welfare of the troops.  He was further informed that he
should have made every effort to complete the mission and that his actions
could result in action being taken against him under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ).  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
counseling form indicating that no one had made him aware of who was in
charge of the dining facility.

9.  In a separate counseling session on 13 April 1983, the applicant was
counseled by his first sergeant for failure to follow instructions.  During
the counseling session his first sergeant stated that he was present at the
convoy briefing and that he was told what needed to happen to return the
unit to garrison.  The first sergeant stated, in effect, that the applicant
failed to make the necessary preparation as informed.  The applicant was
told that as a sergeant first class in the United States Army, he should be
setting an example for his fellow noncommissioned officers to follow and
that any future actions of this nature would result in his being considered
for action under the UCMJ.

10.  The applicant was counseled by his first sergeant again on 14 April
1983, for failure to follow instructions.  His first sergeant stated that
he informed the applicant that he wanted to inspect the equipment that had
been taken to the field with the 200th Aviation Company and that he be
notified when the equipment would be ready for inspection.  The applicant
stated that did not know and the first sergeant told him that he wanted to
be notified when the equipment was ready to be inspected.  The first
sergeant stated that the applicant failed to do what he was instructed to
do by putting away the equipment before it was inspected.  The applicant
was informed that a copy of the counseling statement would be given to his
unit commander.

11.  On 14 April 1983, the applicant was counseled by his commanding
officer as he reported that he was unsure of his chain of command and
communication channels.  During this counseling, the applicant was notified
that his duty performance was below the standards of a noncommissioned
officer with his time in service and rank.  He was told that he would again
have the mission of operating a consolidated dining facility and the names
of the individuals that were in his chain of command.  The applicant
acknowledged receipt of the counseling statement indicating that his
performance was not below standard for a noncommissioned officer because no
standard was set for him to meet.  He stated that he reported to the first
sergeant who referred him to someone else that set the standards, which he
accomplished.

12.  The applicant was counseled again on 22 April 1983, for providing
unsatisfactory food service during an Army Training Evaluation Program.
His commanding officer stated that the meat portions were poorly controlled
during the evening meal which resulted in personnel receiving no meat; that
eggs were misplaced during the serving of the meal which resulted in
personnel receiving no eggs; that equipment was not prepared and loaded
correctly for the training program which resulted in equipment being left
behind in the storage room.  Although the General Counseling Form is
unclear, it appears that the applicant was informed that there would be an
Inspector General (IG) inspection in June 1983, and that he was expected to
exceed all of the requirements and standards pertaining to that inspection.
 At the end of this counseling session, the applicant acknowledged receipt
of the counseling statement by providing a statement indicating that an
officer in his chain of command was aware of the shortage of food service
personnel and that he was instructed only a few days prior to the training
evaluation program to personally supervise the team in the field.  He
stated that he had accomplished the primary mission of passing the
evaluation standards of feeding the troops and maintaining field
sanitation.  He concluded by stating that he would accomplish the mission
of passing the IG inspection with the personnel provided to the best of his
ability.

13.  On 15 June 1983, the applicant was furnished a Relief for Cause
Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER) for the period covering May 1983 through
June 1983.  In the EER his rater indicated that he was being relieved for
extreme duty inefficiency as a result of his failure to organize, supervise
or properly utilize his assets towards the completion of his assigned
duties.  The EER reflects the increasingly adverse faults noted by III
Corps Artillery Food Service inspectors during monthly inspections during
the period January 1983 through April 1983; the cooks and contract
personnel reported for duty out of proper uniform; and he required
excessive assistance and counseling during the period of the Army Training
Evaluation Program as examples of his inefficiency.  In the EER, the
applicant’s rater stated that he possessed vast technical knowledge as
supported by his skills qualification test scores and his associate’s
degree; however, his inability to apply his knowledge or even apply basic
military skills prevented him from being an effective dining facility
manager in his battalion.  Both his rater and his indorser recommended that
he not be promoted.  The applicant refused to sign the EER.
14.  On 2 November 1983, the applicant was furnished a Letter of Reprimand
(LOR) regarding the poor performance of his duties.  In the LOR the
counseling official cited five areas in which the applicant’s performance
needed improvement.  The cited areas were his relationship and his need to
coordinate with another dining facility noncommissioned officers; his need
to follow-up on is directives; his poor knowledge of his subordinates; the
poor shape of the battalion mess equipment; and the poor shape of the
battalion mess vehicles.  He was reminded that he had previously been
informed that if improvement was not noticed that a LOR and further actions
could reasonably be expected and that he had not improved in any of the
areas.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the LOR and he submitted a
statement indicating that the reprimand was uncalled for as most of the
problems that were identified were beyond his control. He stated that he
would continue to try to improve.

15.  The applicant was furnished a LOR dated 5 December 1983, in which his
commanding officer stated that following a battalion field training
exercise, the mess section dumped their equipment in the mess table
organization equipment (TOE) room.  The CO stated that the applicant was
advised that day to have the section clean their equipment and that he
declined to follow that advice.  The CO stated that days after the exercise
the TOE room still had all of the equipment dumped in a pile in the middle
of the section room and that none of the equipment was cleaned.  The CO
stated that on 17 November and 18 November 1983, the applicant was told to
have the equipment cleaned or on the weekend of 19 November and 20 November
1983 to call all off duty cooks in to clean the equipment and he failed to
do so, as the mess TOE equipment was still dirty on 21 November 1983.  The
CO further stated that the applicant was directed to inventory the mess
equipment and to identify shortages, which he failed to do so. In the LOR
the CO went on to identify the applicant’s numerous displays of
inefficiency and officially relieved him of his duties of battalion mess
sergeant.  He was informed that he would work for the first sergeant
pending a decision of his disposition and separation from the Army.  The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the statement on 6 December 1983.

16.  On 5 January 1984, the applicant was notified that he was being
recommended for an administrative reduction in rank based on his
inefficiency.  In the notification, the applicant’s CO stated that he had
been given every chance to rehabilitate himself and become an efficient
noncommissioned officer and that he had failed and resisted the guidance
given to him by his chain of command.  The CO informed him of the rights
that were available to him at that time.  The applicant acknowledged
receipt of the notification requesting that his case be considered before a
board of officers; that he be allowed a personal appearance before the
board; and that he be afforded a minority board member.  He also submitted
a statement in his own behalf informing the CO that he failed to take
specifics into consideration.  He stated that he was not directed to
inventory any equipment; that the CO’s indecisiveness regarding the
responsibility for the food service equipment was the reason the equipment
was missing; that the CO failed to accept responsibility; that he
continuously requested support from the CO and that the CO failed to see
the need for a program to maintain the battalion’s food service equipment
utilizing personnel from other batteries on a continuous basis; and that
the primary goal was the troops that they were being well fed.

17.  An administrative reduction board convened on 17 February 1984, to
determine whether or not the applicant should be reduced in rank due to
inefficiency.  After careful consideration of the evidence, the board
determined that there was sufficient evidence to reduce him in rank.

18.  The appropriate convening authority approved the recommendation of the
reduction board.  Accordingly, on 21 February 2004, the applicant was
reduced to the rank of staff sergeant (E-6).

19.  On 31 May 1985, the applicant was honorably released from active duty
upon completion of his required service for retirement, and he was placed
on the retired list in the pay grade of E-6.  He had completed 20 years and
6 days of total active service.

20.  On 18 April 1988, the applicant was notified by the Sectional Center
Manager, United States Postal Service that he had been found medically
unsuitable for the position of city carrier and that his name had been
removed from the active Lawton Clerk/Carrier register of eligibles.  The
manager stated that a review of his medical records and evaluation by their
medical officer revealed a dysthymic disorder with dependent personality
disorder and that his condition was not compatible with the strenuous
physical and mental activities required for the position.  The manager
further stated that postal employment could aggravate his condition and
place his personal health and safety in jeopardy.

21.  VA Rating Decision dated 9 May 1989 shows that the applicant was
awarded a 10 percent disability rating on 1 June 1985, for dysthymic
disorder with dependent personality, which was increased to 100 percent on
9 May 1989.

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the policy and procedures for
enlisted promotions and reductions.  Chapter 7, section III, contains
guidance on reductions for inefficiency.  It states that inefficiency is a
demonstration of characteristics that show that the person cannot perform
duties and responsibilities of the grade and MOS.  Inefficiency may also
include any act or conduct that clearly shows that the soldier lacks those
abilities and qualities normally required and expected of an individual of
that grade and experience.
Paragraph 7-6 provides the criteria for reduction for inefficiency.  It
states that a soldier must have served in the same unit for at least 90
days prior to being reduced one grade for inefficiency, and the commander
starting the reduction action must present documents showing the soldier's
inefficiency to the reduction authority.  Documents should establish a
pattern of inefficiency rather than identify a specific incident.
Paragraph 7-7 contains the policy for reduction boards.  It states, in
effect, that the board will ensure that enough testimony is presented to
enable the board members to fully and impartially evaluate each case, be
objective in their deliberations, arrive at a proper recommendation,
consider those abilities and qualities required and expected of a soldier
of that grade and experience.  In addition, it states that the board will
determine what is in the best interests of the Army, and that consideration
of prior years of faithful service while commendable, should not be
overriding.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be reinstated
to the rank of sergeant first class, because he was unjustly mentally and
physically assaulted while he was in Germany which resulted in his
erroneous reduction.  However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to
support this claim.

2.  After carefully evaluating the applicant’s entire record of service,
the Board concludes that he was reduced to staff sergeant as a result of
his own misconduct and that the reduction actions were properly
accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the
time.  Therefore, the Board finds that it would not be appropriate to
reinstate him to the rank of sergeant first class at this time.

3.  The administration reduction board proceedings show that the board was
conducted in accordance with the applicable regulation.  The findings and
recommendations of the board were approved by the proper convening
authority and, lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes
government regularity in the conduct of the administrative reduction board
and in the entire reduction process.

4.  It is clear the applicant began experiencing mental problems in March
1982, when he was hospitalized and diagnosed by physicians as having an
adjustment disorder with work inhabitation.  However, the evidence does not
establish that this was the only or even the primary factor for his poor
duty performance and ultimate relief from his position.  The record
contains a Relief for Cause EER and the rater on this report categorized
his overall performance as unsatisfactory.  The rater supported this
evaluation with a recommendation that he not be promoted.  In the opinion
of the Board, this satisfies the regulatory criteria that a reduction for
inefficiency be based on a pattern of displayed inefficiencies.

5.  The Board also considered the applicant’s assertion that his chain of
command chose to ignore his medical records and to punish and isolate him
for circumstances and symptoms beyond his control.  However, the applicant
was cleared by a trained psychiatrist to return to duty and once he
returned to duty, it appears that he was provided every opportunity to
include plenty of directions and instructions on what it would take for him
to exceed the standards of his duties and to rehabilitate himself and
become an efficient noncommissioned officer.  Therefore, this Board has
determined that his reduction in rank based on inefficiency was
appropriate.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 May 1985; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 30 May 1988.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

dja _____  jlp  _____  le  ______  DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  ____Jennifer L. Prater__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004103328                             |
|SUFFIX                  |                                         |
|RECON                   |                                         |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041216                                 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                         |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                         |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                         |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                         |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                     |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                         |
|ISSUES         1.  322  |133.0000.0000/REDUCTION IN RANK          |
|2.  324                 |133.0200.0000/INEFFICIENCY               |
|3.  327                 |133.0500.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTION   |
|4.                      |                                         |
|5.                      |                                         |
|6.                      |                                         |


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