MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            9 December 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12431

	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.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	

	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:  That his honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the medical board proceedings were unjust and his civil rights were violated.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 June 1972.

On 31 July 1972, a medical board diagnosed the applicant with immature personality, chronic, moderate and determined that it existed prior to his entry in the service (EPTS) and was not aggravated by active duty.  The board recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-9.  The findings and recommendation of the board were approved, and on 2 August 1972, the applicant agreed with the board’s action.

On 7 August 1972, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-9, not meeting medical fitness standards at time of enlistment.  He had completed 1 month and 10 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.  At the time, chapter 5, paragraph 5-9, set the policy and prescribed procedures for separating members who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty.

Army Regulation 40-501 governs the medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction and appointment.  Chapter 3 gives the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standards required for enlisted soldiers of the Regular Army. The pertinent subparagraph states that personality disorders may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels. 

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.  The discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

JH______  FNE_____  TBR_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX
CASE ID	AC98-12431	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19981209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	720807	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 5-9	
DISCHARGE REASON	A93.23	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.