BOARD DATE:	  29 March 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110018838 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of her previous request to upgrade her character of service from general under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she did not receive punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) during her period of service.  Attitudes are a matter of opinion.  She has a type of brain tumor called meningioma.  Personality changes and behavioral issues are part of the symptoms associated with brain tumors.  Harsh punishment is not the most just course for those with brain tumors.  The inability of U.S. Army medical staff to detect her brain tumor from obvious symptoms – ear ringing and balance issues as clearly demonstrated by her repeated sprained ankles, neck, and back – shows unfairness to an enlisted person who has no medical background.  Her symptoms were present and the Army failed in its duty to detect her brain tumor, a serious medical condition.  She indicates she desires to appear before the Board.

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statement
* memorandum for record, dated 1 July 1986
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* three magnetic resonance images (MRI)
* Internet article describing meningioma



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC87-09539, dated 15 August 1989.

2.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter, three MRI's, a memorandum of record, and information on brain tumors which she believes constitutes a new argument and new evidence.  The new argument and evidence were not previously considered by the Board; therefore, they warrant consideration.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 1985.  She completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 96B (Intelligence Analyst).  The highest grade she attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC)/E-3.

4.  Her available medical records range in date from 11 March 1985 to 25 November 1986.  During this period she sought medical treatment on several occasions for diarrhea, stomach cramps, back pain, neck sprain, neck pain, foot pain, ankle sprain, ankle pain, shin splints, sore throat, calf pain, moderate obesity, cough, sinusitis, and influenza.

5.  Her records contain a memorandum for record, dated 27 June 1986, in which her noncommissioned officer in charge stated:

	a.  "She has demonstrated a lack of willingness to comply with orders, a poor attitude, and has placed her priorities over the mission."

	b.  "On several occasions I have observed (the applicant) evading mission requirements.  On one occasion it took her 4 to 5 hours to clean the inside of a [military vehicle], which had not been deployed to the field.  On another occasion it took her 3 to 4 hours to clean her M-16 rifle, which had not been fired."

	c.  "She is constantly going to sick call, in many cases without notifying her proper chain of command.  She is always on a [physical] profile which limits her ability to do just about nothing except pull guard duty or kitchen patrol.  She has refused to get her military driver's license and has not been able to update her physical training test."

	d.  "On several occasions she has expressed a desire to separate from military service and has stated that her health is her primary concern, not the mission."

	e.  "It is my professional opinion that the U.S. Army would be better off with separating (the applicant)."

6.  Her records contain a memorandum for record, dated 1 July 1986, in which the S-2 officer in charge stated:

	a.  "(The applicant) has failed to meet the minimum standards set by the Army in all aspects.  She does not perform her assigned duties nor does she show the inclination of being motivated to do so."

	b.  "She has been counseled at the end of each month and as notification [sic] that we were considering separating her from the service."

	c.  "(The applicant's) physical health is of great hindrance not only to her but also to the section.  She blames the Army for her poor state of health; however, she has had an ongoing problem with being significantly overweight.  Anyone who is overweight is more likely to be uncomfortable during the physical exertion required in the field environment."

	d.  "It is difficult for the section to work around her limitations and carry her along as she is unable to help out in many situations."

	e.  "(The applicant) does not contribute to accomplishment of the mission.  She is without a doubt in the wrong profession all together.  Although she has not violated the UCMJ in a 'hard and fast' way, her apathy and deliberate evasion of work is, in my opinion, grounds for her removal from the service."

7.  As stated in the previous ABCMR case, the applicant was counseled by her chain of command on at least six occasions from 5 June 1986 to 7 July 1986 for lacking motivation, constantly reporting to sick call without notifying her chain of command, displaying poor attitude, showing unwillingness to comply with orders, failing to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test, and placing her personal priorities over the command's mission.

8.  She responded to the counseling by stating her physical and emotional problems were caused by her chain of command, her primary concern was her health in view of her past injuries, she desired to leave the Army as soon as possible, and she would seek to receive at least a general discharge under honorable conditions.

9.  Her records contain a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 1 July 1986.  This form shows she was denied an automatic promotion to the grade of E-4 because her company commander felt her duty performance did not warrant a promotion at that time.

10.  Her records contain a response to a Congressional inquiry, dated 5 August 1986, which stated:

	a.  "Because of (the applicant's) varied alleged physical problems, which the unit is attempting to clarify, she will be scheduled for a physical examination…  At present, a physical examination cannot be scheduled prior to 18 August 1986."

	b.  "The decision to eliminate (the applicant) has not officially been determined and will not be until her present medical condition is clarified by medical authorities."

11.  On 21 August 1986, she received a separation medical examination.  The report of medical examination stated she had persistent shin splints and recurrent back pain.  The medical official determined referral to a medical evaluation board was not warranted.

12.  The previous ABCMR case indicated she was notified of her commander's intent to initiate separation action against her for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, and informed of her rights on 21 August 1986.  She consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, the possible effects of a general discharge under honorable conditions, and the rights available to her.  She requested counsel and indicated she did not intend to submit statements in her own behalf.

13.  On 27 August 1986, she was psychiatrically cleared for separation.

14.  The complete separation packet is not available for review in this case.

15.  As stated in the previous ABCMR case, the separation authority approved her discharge on 10 September 1986, waived further rehabilitative requirements, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

16.  Her records contain a letter from the Office of the Inspector General (IG), dated 11 September 1986.  This letter is in reply to her inquiry and essentially states that after conducting an informal inquiry the IG office determined she was being considered for separation from the service under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.

17.  On 1 October 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  Her DD Form 214 confirms she was discharged for unsatisfactory performance in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 with a character of service as under honorable conditions (general).  This form further shows she completed 1 year, 3 months, and 12 days of net active service during this period.

18.  She applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge on two previous occasions and was denied relief.

19.  She submits a self-authored statement in which she states she did not violate the UCMJ.  She argues that her health conditions and the medication she was prescribed by her doctors made it difficult to perform her duties satisfactorily.  She concludes by stating she has been diagnosed with a brain tumor which the Army should have diagnosed and she believes the tumor was the cause of her behavioral shift and problems at work.

20.  She submits three MRI's and an Internet description of meningioma as evidence of her medical condition.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when, in the commander's judgment, the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

22.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

23.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), paragraph 2-11, states that applicants do not have a right to a formal hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director of the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, she was issued a DD Form 214 that shows she was discharged under honorable conditions for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.

2.  There is no evidence in her military record to show military medical authorities diagnosed or suspected a brain tumor.  Additionally, the medical documentation she provided does not conclusively show she suffered from a brain tumor while she was serving on active duty.

3.  The evidence of record shows her duty performance was tarnished by a history of negative counseling, failing to meet the Army's minimum standards by not performing her assigned duties, failing to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test, having an ongoing problem with being significantly overweight, constantly reporting to sick call without notifying her chain of command, and not contributing to accomplishment of the mission.

4.  Though she did not commit an offense punishable under the UCMJ, she displayed a lack of motivation, poor attitude, unwillingness to comply with orders, and placed her personal priorities over the command's mission.  Her apathy and deliberate evasion of work combined with her failure to meet the minimum Army standards formed the basis of her removal from military service.

5.  There is no evidence of record and she has not provided evidence to show she was not properly and equitably discharged.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the discharge proceedings are presumed to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  The reason for discharge and the character of service appear to be both proper and equitable.

6.  By regulation, an honorable discharge is a separation characterization that is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Her apathy and failure to meet the minimum Army standards rendered her service unsatisfactory.  She has not provided any evidence or a sufficiently mitigating argument to warrant an upgrade of her discharge.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

7.  Although she requested to personally appear before the Board, there was sufficient evidence available for fair and impartial consideration of her case.

8.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis for granting her requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x_  ____x____  _____x___  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC87-09539, dated 15 August 1989.



      __________x_______________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018838



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018838



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1