MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            21 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021068

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		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 upgraded to a medical discharge with back pay and allowances.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should have received a medical discharge instead of being honorably discharged.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 16 January 1976 as a materiel supply specialist.

The applicant’s chronological Record of Medical Care (SF 600), dated 25 July 1977, shows that the applicant was seen for pain to his right shoulder at the 
Troop Medical Clinic in Fort Ord, California.  The applicant was later seen on
2 August 1977 for possible recurrent shoulder subluxation (an incomplete or partial dislocation).  On that same day, he was issued a temporary physical profile of 131111 for a period of 30 days and was medically qualified for limited duty.

The applicant was seen on several occasions once again for his shoulder pain.

The applicant underwent a medical examination on 8 August 1978 and was found qualified with a 111111 physical profile.  

On 16 November 1978, he was issued another temporary physical profile of 131111 for a period of 30 days and was medically qualified for limited duty.  

He continued to serve until he was honorably released from active duty on 12 January 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-12, due to early release of overseas returnees.  He had served 2 years, 11 months, and 16 days of creditable service.

The applicant’s personnel records contain a DA Form 1811 (Physical Data and Aptitude Test Scores Upon Release From Active Duty), dated 12 January 1979, which states his physical profile was 111111, and which is the same day he was separated.

Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 7, physical profiling, provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower 

extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment.  Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically fit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3a, provided, in pertinent part, that performance of duty despite an impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

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 applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability, which required physical disability processing at the time of separation.

2.  Evidence of record shows that he was discharged in accordance with applicable regulations then in effect.  

3.  While the applicant was diagnosed as having a recurrent shoulder subluxation, his medical condition was not medically disqualifying/unfitting for retention at the time in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501.  

4.  Notwithstanding his temporary physical profiles for his shoulder condition, he
continued to perform his duties and competent medical authorities determined that he was qualified for separation.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

5.  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.

6.  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

CWB____  JMA____  RGH_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021068	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990721	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19790112	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 191		
2.  540/MED		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.