RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  4 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080000894 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mrs. Nancy L. Amos

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Eric N. Andersen

Chairperson

Mr. Peter B. Fisher

Member

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

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 the narrative reason for her separation and her separation code be changed.

2.  The applicant states that the narrative reason for her separation was determined solely by the only adverse information in her records – the unfavorable Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 6 October 1992 through 9 April 1993 that was subsequently appealed, deleted, and the rating period declared non-rated.  

3.  The applicant states that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) acknowledges that the record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to her discharge and is void of her letter of resignation in lieu of elimination or any evidence of her consultation with counsel advising her of her rights.  Without documents to the contrary, Government regularity in the discharge process cannot be presumed.  

4.  The applicant provides a memorandum, dated 15 June 1995, from the Appeals and Corrections Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) with a memorandum for record (MFR) of the same date; her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 16 February 1996; and the ADRB case report.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the U. S. Army Reserve, Army Nurse Corps, on 7 June 1990.  She entered extended active duty on 15 July 1990.  She was promoted to first lieutenant on 14 January 1991.

2.  The applicant received an apparently adverse OER for the period 6 October 1992 through 9 April 1993.  She appealed the OER, and she was notified by PERSCOM in a memorandum, dated 15 June 1995, that her appeal was successful and the OER would be deleted from her records.

3.  The applicant received a relief-for-cause OER for the period 10 April 1993 through 23 February 1994.  The substance of the OER was that she did not demonstrate the ability or potential beyond being a staff nurse.  She appealed 
this OER.  She was notified by PERSCOM in a memorandum, dated 10 May 1995, that the evidence did not justify altering or withdrawing this OER.

4.  The applicant received a change of rater OER for the period 24 February 1994 through 1 October 1994, during which period she performed the duties of an administrative assistant.  The substance of the comments in this OER was that she had not shown the necessary potential for leadership to continue as an officer in the Army Nurse Corps.  She appealed this OER.  She was notified by PERSCOM in a memorandum, dated 10 May 1995, that one sentence would be deleted from Part Ve (rater’s comment on potential).  That sentence was deleted and is not entered in Part Ve of the OER filed in her Official Military Personnel File.

5.  The applicant received an annual OER for the period 2 October 1994   through 1 October 1995, during which period she performed the duties of an administrative assistant.  The substance of the comments in this OER was that she had no potential for positions in the Army that required responsibility and leadership.  There is no evidence of record to show she appealed this OER.

6.  The applicant’s separation packet is not available.  

7.  On 16 February 1996, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-24(1) (sic).  She was given a narrative reason for separation of “Unacceptable Conduct” and a separation code of “BNC.”

8.  On 21 November 2007, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation and her separation code.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), dated 21 July 1995, chapter 4, outlined the policy and procedures for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or 
professional dereliction, and the interest of national security.  Paragraph 4-24a(1) 
stated that an officer identified for elimination could, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case, elect to submit a resignation in lieu of elimination.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), dated 13 August 1993, provided that when the authority for separation was Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 4, then the narrative reason for separation would  
be “Unacceptable Conduct” and the separation code would be “BNC.”  As of     
13 August 1993, Army Regulation 635-120 had not yet been superseded by Army Regulation 600-8-24.  The next revision of Army Regulation 635-5-1, dated 



1 December 2000, provided that when the authority for separation was Army 
Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b and paragraph 4-24a(1), then the narrative reason for separation would be “Unacceptable Conduct” and the separation code would be “BNC.”

11.  Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the procedures for processing requests to correct military records.  In pertinent part, it states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by the preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s separation proceedings might not be available, but the successfully appealed OER was not the only adverse information in her records. She had three later OERs in her records, including a relief-for-cause OER, which indicated she did not demonstrate the ability or potential beyond being a staff nurse and she had no potential for positions in the Army that required responsibility and leadership.

2.  The applicant’s letter of resignation in lieu of elimination might not be available; however, the narrative reason for separation and the separation code indicate that she did indeed submit a resignation in lieu of elimination.  However, that being the case, based upon regulatory guidance she was given the proper narrative reason for separation and separation code.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ena___  __pbf___  __jcr___  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.




__Eric N. Andersen____
          CHAIRPERSON