BOARD DATE:    3 September 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130001938


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 correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show:

* her date of birth (DOB) as 6 Jxxxxxx 1968
* that she was discharged due to a medical disability

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

* she sustained a left shoulder tendon injury in basic training
* due to this injury, she was unable to complete the training required for her military occupational specialty (MOS)
* she was told that she should separate under a regular designation and deal with the injury through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
* she was also diagnosed with asthma after going through the gas chamber in basic training and having a near-death reaction

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 November 1987.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a 
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant requested correction of her DD Form 214 to show her DOB as 
6 Jxxxxxx 1968.  Her DD Form 214 already correctly shows this DOB, however, the format used is YYMMDD.  Therefore, her DOB is not in error and this portion of her request will not be discussed further in these Proceedings. 

3.  On 3 March 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She entered active duty at Fort Jackson, SC, where she completed basic training.  

4.  On or about 7 May 1987, after completing basic training, she was reassigned to Fort Sam Houston, TX, for the purpose of completing advanced individual training (AIT) in MOS 91G (Behavioral Science Specialist).  

5.  On 20 August 1987, she was notified that she had failed to obtain a passing score in the Interviewing Performance exam and retest in the 91G course of instruction.  She was further counseled and advised that she would be recommended for relief for academic reasons, which she acknowledged.

6.  On 26 August 1987, her battalion commander determined she was trainable and warranted retraining in a second MOS.  It appears, at this point, she was recycled for training into another MOS and given a rehabilitative transfer to another training battalion at Fort Sam Houston.

7.  On 4, 14, 24, and 29 September 1987, she was counseled concerning her academic performance and her desire to be discharged from the Army.  During these counseling sessions, her counselors noted she was having health issues, due in part to an injury she sustained in basic training that was slow to heal.  Her counselors also noted other health issues, including dizziness, cramps, and depression, as well as her requirement to attend follow-up medical appointments for these issues.

8.  The DA Form 4856-R (General Counseling Form), documenting her counseling on 4 September 1987, indicates she was sent home on a pass and given an opportunity to reconsider her desire to be discharged from the Army.  On 8 September 1987, after returning from being on pass, her counselor noted that she had not changed her mind and still wanted to be discharged from the Army.  Accordingly, she was referred to her company commander for further counseling, which occurred on 24 September 1987.

9.  On 19 October 1987, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX.  Her resulting Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) shows she was qualified for separation, she was given a physical profile PULHES code of "111111," consistent with the code given the Army's most physically fit Soldiers, and she did not require further referral for any existing medical conditions.

10.  On 5 November 1987, her immediate commander notified her of her intent to initiate elimination action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  The reason for his proposed action was the applicant's strong desire to be discharged from the Army, her lack of will to succeed, and the serious difficulty she was experiencing adjusting to the Army and its way of life.  Her immediate commander indicated she would recommend the applicant receive an honorable discharge.

11.  On 5 November 1987, after consultation with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation memorandum, the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, the rights available to her, and the effect of any action taken by her to waive her rights.  She declined to submit statements in her own behalf.  She acknowledged she understood she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event an under honorable conditions (general) discharge was issued to her.  

12.  On 5 November 1987, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  Her immediate commander recommended she receive an honorable discharge.

13.  On 9 November 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 with an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  

14.  On 18 November 1987, she was involuntarily released from active duty, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge.  

   a. Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) of her DD Form 214 shows she was released from active duty in the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2.
   b. Item 12c (Record of Service – Net Active Service This Period) of her 
DD Form 214 shows she was credited with the completion of 8 months and 
16 days of net active service during this period. 

   c. Item 23 (Type of Separation) contains the entry "Relief from Active Duty."

   d. Item 24 (Character of Service) contains the entry "Honorable."

   e. Item 25 (Separation Authority) contains the entry "AR (Army Regulation) 635-200, chap (Chapter) 13." 

   f. Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) contains the entry "Unsatisfactory Performance."

15.  Her medical records are not available for review; however, there is no evidence in her personnel records of any injury or illness that would have warranted her entry into the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).

16.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically-disqualifying condition.

17.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b(1) then in effect, provided that when a member was being separated by reasons other than physical disability, his or her continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until he or she was scheduled for separation or retirement created a presumption that he or she was fit.  This presumption could be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he or she was unable to perform his or her duties for a period of time or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

18.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating at less than 30 percent.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends her honorable discharge should be changed to a medical discharge.  

2.  The evidence of record shows she was counseled numerous times regarding her academic standing and her performance during AIT.  During these counseling sessions, she indicated that she desired to be discharged from the Army.  Based on her request, and her demonstrated academic deficiencies, her command determined it was in the best interests of the applicant and the Army to proceed with her discharge processing.  She received a separation physical; however, it appears her examining physician did not consider her conditions severe enough to warrant her entry into the PDES. 

3.  Her record shows she was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  All requirements of law and regulations were met and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.   In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis to grant the 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      __________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)                                         AR20100009160



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130001938



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1