MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             10 June 1998                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AC98-08212

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms.	Erin J. Olmes		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Calvin M. Fowler		Member	
	Ms.	Jennifer L. Prater		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that when he went to sign up for unemployment he was told that his discharge was dishonorable and his application for benefits was denied; that his service was honorable and included one promotion and no lost time; and that his records were in error because they indicated he attended basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina instead of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

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

On 29 February 1996 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland to train in MOS 63D (Self Propelled Field Artillery Systems Mechanic).

The applicant’s record indicates the highest rank held on active duty was private/E-2 and documents no acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

On 9 August 1996 a DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings) was prepared which documented the results of an EPSBD conducted on the applicant.  The EPSBD concluded the applicant suffered from symptomatic pes planus (flat feet) and recommended that the applicant be cleared for administrative separation, under the provisions of  AR 40-501, based on his being unfit for duty.  On 9 August 1996 the appropriate medical authority approved the findings of the EPSBD.  On 20 August 1996 the applicant concurred with the EPSBD findings and requested to be discharged from the Army without delay, and his unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge.

On 4 October 1996 the intermediate level commander recommended the applicant be discharged, under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200 as for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, and that his service be uncharacterized based on his being in an entry level status.  Also on 4 October 1996 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged with uncharacterized service.  Accordingly, on 
18 October 1996 the applicant was discharged after completing 7 months and 
20 days of active service.

On 7 May 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11, of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a regular Army member may be separated for not meeting medical procurement standards if the condition is identified by appropriate medical authorities within 6 months of the soldier’s initial entrance on active duty.  The appropriate characterization of service for soldiers separated under these provisions within their first 180 days of active duty (Entry Level Status) is uncharacterized. 

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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his record was in error because it incorrectly listed his basic training location as Fort Jackson, South Carolina; and that his service was honorable and included a promotion.  However, the Board found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The proceedings of the Enlistment Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) revealed that the applicant had a medical condition that was disqualifying for enlistment and that existed prior to entry on active duty.  Subsequently, these findings were approved by competent medical authority.  The applicant agreed with these findings and the proposed action for administrative separation from the Army.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected through the separation process.  In addition, the evidence of record shows that the applicant received an uncharacterized separation while in an entry level status (ELS).  The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge as entry level status, with the description of service as uncharacterized.  A soldier is in entry level status for the first 180 days of continuous active duty. 

2.  The contention of the applicant that he was denied unemployment benefits was noted by the Board.  However, this issue is not a matter on which the Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion relating to the discharge process nor is it associated with the discharge at the time of issuance.  Eligibility for unemployment or veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of the Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the State Employment Office for further assistance.

3. 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.

4.  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