APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his discharge be changed to a disability discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was injured while on active duty.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant’s DD Form 214 should be corrected as requested.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:

He was born on 18 August 1953.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on                 4 November 1982.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36C (Wire System Installer/Operator).

On 8 November 1983, the commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  He cited the applicant’s extreme lack of initiative and responsibility in dealing with superiors that resulted in poor job performance as a whole.

Four statements were attached to the separation action.  The applicant’s platoon leader noted his proficiency in his MOS but that he was unwilling, not unable, to adapt to the military.  His platoon sergeant noted that the applicant had stated his age difference with his peers caused him considerable stress.  One chaplain noted that the applicant was obsessed with getting out of the Army; another that the applicant lacked the determination and zeal to soldier.

On 9 November 1983, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible and mentally capable of understanding and participating in any board proceedings.

On 10 November 1983, the applicant acknowledged notification of the separation action.  He elected not to submit any statements in his own behalf.

On 24 November 1983, the appropriate commander approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 9 December 1983, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 6 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  In pertinent part it states that, when a soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement, creates a presumption that the soldier is fit.  The presumption of fitness may be overcome if the evidence establishes that the soldier was, in fact, physically unable to perform adequately the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating for a period of time because of disability.  There must be a causative relationship between the less than adequate duty performance and the unfitting medical condition or conditions.

The VA has awarded the applicant a disability rating for an unknown disability.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  Any rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify any separation action it has taken.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                          Loren G. Harrell
					     Director