IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  29 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130003889 


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 an upgrade of her character of service from under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was discharged due to early separation of personnel denied reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  She contends that her bar to reenlistment and conduct that resulted in the bar was directly related to the stress she suffered as a victim of Military Sexual Trauma (MST).  Her conduct was exemplary until she was assaulted.  Her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder were a direct result of the crimes committed against her.  Had she not been affected by those criminal acts, she would have successfully completed her service in an honorable manner.  Further, she lives with the stigma of the assaults and the less than honorable discharge.  She was a Soldier and her life was forever changed by the criminal acts of others.

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision, dated 9 February 2007.

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.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 February 1972.  After completion of training, she was awarded military occupational specialty 91A (Medical Corpsman).

3.  She accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions on:

* 26 September 1972, for failing to obey a lawful order
* 21 November 1972, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty

4.  The applicant's head nurse completed a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), Subject:  Qualitative Management Program Elimination, which recommended the applicant for elimination under the provisions of the QMP.  The head nurse stated her impression was the applicant was immature and could not be delegated the responsibilities in the nursing care of others.  She had proven to be consistently irresponsible and did not show the initiative required of a 91A.  Further, she had been consistently counseled on her inability to function and had continued to show no measurable improvement.  Therefore, she did not believe the applicant should be allowed to continue in an area where the health of individuals was of prime importance.  The QMP was discussed with the applicant on 12 February 1973.

5.  On 8 March 1973, the Chief, Nursing Service, recommended the applicant's immediate elimination from the military under the provisions of the QMP.  She noted that the applicant had failed to respond to repeated counseling from the Education Coordinator's Office, the head nurse, ward master, and shift supervisors.  It was not believed that additional counseling would be beneficial.

6.  On 20 March 1973, the applicant acknowledged that she had been counseled concerning her conduct and that she understood that she may be denied advancement to the rank of private first class/E-3 and eliminated from the service with an honorable or general discharge if her conduct failed to improve.

7.  On 4 April 1973, the applicant's commander denied her advancement to pay grade E-3 and directed that the applicant be processed under the QMP.
8.  On 9 April 1973, the applicant acknowledged she understood she was being recommended for elimination from the service for failing to advance to pay grade E-3.  She submitted a statement in which she indicated that she did not get along well with the head nurse and that they had worked on the same shift only 18 days.  She personally never received any complaints about her performance from her coworkers and she did not believe she was being treated fairly.  She intended to ask for a transfer to another ward.

9.  On 18 April 1973, the applicant's unit commander recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of the QMP as stated in Department of the Army (DA) Message 242110Z, September 1971, Subject:  Extension of QMP to grade E-1 to E-2.  The commander recommended that the applicant be issued a general discharge based on her substandard performance and failure to show meaningful improvement.

10.  On 9 May 1973, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  She was accordingly discharged on 14 May 1973.

11.  Item 11c (Reason and Authority) of her DD Form 214 contains the entry Chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, Separation Program Number 430, Early Separation of Personnel Denied Reenlistment Under the QMP.

12.  She provided her VA disability rating which shows she was awarded a 
70-percent service connected disability for PTSD and major depressive disorder.  It was noted that in her disability claim, dated 18 September 2006, she requested service connection for PTSD as a result of being sexually assaulted several times during her military service.  She reported being assaulted in June, the fall and December of 1972, as well as the spring of 1973.

13.  The applicant's medical records are not available for review and she did not provide any evidence she received medical treatment for MST while on active duty.  Further, the available record is void of documents related to a sexual assault.

14.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), chapter 4, set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  That program was based on the premise that reenlistment was a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement met Army standards.  It was designed to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to non-progressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  DA (DAPE-MPP) MSG 242110Z, September 
1971, extended the provisions of the QMP to allow for the early separation of Soldiers in the grades of E-1 and E-2 who had failed to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

     a.  Paragraph 13-2a(6) provides for discharge of individuals if their potential for advancement or leadership is unlikely.  Paragraph 13-10 of this regulation provides the service of Soldiers separated under this authority will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions (general) as warranted by their military records.

     b.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  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 inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her PTSD and major depressive disorder prevented her from completing her service in an honorable manner and prevented her promotion to E-3.  Her service medical records are not available and the applicant provided no medical evidence to show that her poor performance and acts of misconduct were directly related to the stress of having been the victim of MST.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant accepted NJP on two occasions and she was counseled not just by her company commander but also by her head nurse in reference to her substandard performance.  Her lack of measurable improvement resulted in denial of her advancement to the pay grade of E-3.

3.  In April 1973, her unit commander recommended that she be separated under the provisions of the QMP as stated in DA Message 242110Z, September 1971, with a general discharge.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering the available facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized the applicant's rights.
5.  As a result, she was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations and policies then in effect.

6.  In view of the foregoing, she is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20130003889



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130003889



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1