RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012215


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 her discharge for
unsatisfactory performance be changed to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was diagnosed with
personality disorder at Fort Lewis, Washington; however, before she could
be treated for depression, she asked her first sergeant for a voluntary
discharge.  She claims she should have been treated and released for
medical reasons.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of
her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 4 April 1990, the date of her separation.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 13 July 2006.

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 limitations 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.  The applicant's record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 27 April 1989.  She was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76C (Equipment Records and
Parts Specialist), and the highest rank she attained while serving on
active duty was private/E-2 (PV2).

4.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  It does show that
she was formally counseled on her poor conduct and duty performance on
seven separate occasions, which included two incidents of writing bad
checks, between
7 November 1989 and 2 January 1990.

5.  On 11 January 1990, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation was completed
on the applicant by the Division Psychologist.  The doctor indicated the
applicant was evaluated on 3 January 1990, and there was no evidence of an
emotional or mental disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition
through medical channels.  The doctor also indicated the applicant was
psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by
command.  He further indicated it was not possible to document a
personality disorder at that time.  The evaluation also showed the
applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in
separation proceedings, was mentally responsible and met medical retention
standards.

6.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
medical documents indicating the applicant was treated for, or suffered
from a disabling mental or physical condition at the time of her discharge
that would have warranted her separation processing through medical
channels.

7.  On 13 March 1990, the unit commander notified the applicant that action
was being initiated to separate her under the provisions chapter of 13,
Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  The unit
commander stated that the action was based on the applicant writing several
bad checks, her not showing up for duty on several occasions, and her not
having her Identification Card in her possession.  He also advised the
applicant he was recommending she receive a general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD).

8.  On 19 March 1990, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects,
and of the rights available to her.  Subsequent to this counseling, she
completed an election of rights statement, in which she acknowledged that
she had been afforded the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel,
she waived her right to an administrative separation board contingent on
receiving a discharge no less favorable than a GD.

9.  On 22 March 1990, the separation authority directed the applicant's
separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by
reason of unsatisfactory performance, and that she received a GD.  On 4
April 1990, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The separation
document (DD Form 214) she was issued at the time confirms she held the
rank of private/E-1 at the time, and that she had completed a total of 1
year, 4 months, and 5 days of active military service.  The applicant
authenticated this document with her signature on the date of her
separation.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 provides the policy for
separating members for unsatisfactory performance.

11.  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.
 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.  Chapter 4 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).  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that she should have been medically
discharged because she was suffering from a personality disorder and
depression at the time was carefully considered.  However, the evidence of
record confirms the applicant's separation for unsatisfactory performance
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The applicant's record is void of any medical records indicating she
was being treated for, or suffered from a disabling mental or physical
condition at the time of her separation.  To the contrary, a mental status
evaluation completed on her at the time confirmed she had the mental
capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings, she was
mentally responsible, and she met medical retention standards.
3.  Even had the applicant suffered from a personality disorder, this
condition is not necessarily unfitting for further service, and does not
automatically qualify an individual for medical separation processing
through the PDES.  Absent any evidence that she suffered from a disabling
condition that would have warranted her separation processing through the
PDES, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the
requested relief.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 April 1990, the date of her
separation.  Therefore, the time for her to file a request for correction
of any error or injustice expired on 3 April 1993.  She failed to 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

___KAN _  __DKH __  __LMD__  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.




                                  ____Kathleen A. Newman___
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060012215                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/20                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1990/04/04                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200.                             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsat Perf                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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