IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140011713 


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 a 90 day extension of her release from active duty date.

2.  The applicant states:

* her doctor wanted to extend her on active duty in order to see why she was having complications
* the doctor postponed her expiration term of service (ETS) physical and it was never completed
* he wrote a memorandum requesting a 90 day extension but her unit wanted him to extend her for 60 days
* he would not request a 60 day extension because he needed 90 days
* her unit said that she failed to provide the proper paperwork in order to be extended
* she could not compel the doctor to request a 60 day extension 
* on 14 April 2014, she was told that she had bacteria in her system 

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter from a physician
* documents pertaining to a Congressional inquiry
* a letter from an Installation Adjutant General



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s records do not contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

2.  Her record in the Soldier Management System shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 April 2005.  She was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve on 19 March 2012.  

3.  A letter from a physician at the Brooke Army Medical Center, dated              19 March 2012, stated that she was undergoing a medical evaluation for an ongoing condition as a result of surgery while on active duty.  It further stated that she should remain on active duty until the work-up was completed.  It was anticipated that it would take an additional 90 days.  

4.  On 13 July 2012, she requested assistance from her Congressman.  In her request for assistance she stated:

* she had a laparoscopic procedure done on 28 June 2011
* since having the procedure she experienced problems with her bowel movements and her weight had been decreasing
* she informed her physician of the problems she had been having and they tried different methods to see if something had gone wrong with the surgery
* on 19 March 2012, her doctor requested that she be extended for 90 days
* she took the request to her unit and nothing was done with it
* she was told to contact her doctor to see if he would request a 60 day extension instead
* she contacted her doctor and told him what her unit said and told him that he could contact the unit if he had any questions
* she did everything she could to get the problem resolved
* she contacted several officials and the Brooke Army Medical Center Inspector General
* she was told by her battalion retention personnel that if she went to the doctor she would have to pay for her doctor visit
* she did not get paid and did not receive the proper care
* her daughter was sick and had she been extended some of her doctor’s bills would have been covered by TriCare, but instead she had to pay the total bill

  5.  On 6 September 2012, the Office of the Installation Adjutant General responded to the Congressional inquiry.  The response stated:

     a.  On 20 January 2012, the applicant signed out on transitional leave.  Her leave ended on 19 March 2012, completing her military service.  On the morning of 19 March 2012, she called the unit to inform the chain of command (CoC) that she was experiencing medical problems and she needed to be extended beyond her normal ETS date of 19 March 2012 by 90 days in order to receive a medical procedure. 

     b.  At approximately 1500 hours on 19 March 2012, she brought a letter signed by her primary care physician (PCP) requesting a 90 day extension.  She stated that she was informed by her PCP several weeks prior that she needed to get her ETS date extended in order to schedule, receive, and complete the corrective medical procedure.

     c.  The unit first sergeant (1SG) immediately contacted the battalion retention noncommissioned officer (NCO) to initiate the extension action to support the Soldier’s request.  According to the retention NCO, the 90 day extension request would have to be routed from the unit in San Antonio to the 61st Medical Battalion CoC and III Corp CoC in Fort Hood, TX if left at 90 days.  The retention NCO also informed the 1SG that if the request from the PCP was for 60 days or less the request could be completed immediately at their level; otherwise, it could not be initiated due to the amount of time requested.  She was informed of this fact.  The unit waited for the adjusted PCP documentation, but she failed to complete the required actions.

6.  Orders D-04-307023, issued by U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY, dated 30 April 2013, show she was discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve on that date.

7.  Army Regulation 601-280 (Army Retention Program) prescribes the criteria for the Army Retention Program.  For those soldiers serving in the active Army, it outlines procedures for immediate reenlistment or extension of enlistment.  Paragraph 4-9 states extensions are not authorized once the Soldier is within 3 months of scheduled ETS, except when prior approval has been obtained from the Commanding General (CG), HRC.    

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant waited until her ETS date to inform her unit of her medical complications.  It appears that her unit tried to accommodate her request for an extension; however, she failed to provide the requested information. 

2.  Furthermore, the governing regulation states that extensions are not authorized once the Soldier is within 3 months of scheduled ETS, except when prior approval has been obtained from the CG, HRC.   

3.  While it may be unfortunate that the applicant continued to have complications after her release from active duty, there is no evidence of an error or injustice in her case.  As such, there is an insufficient basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20140011713



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140011713



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1