MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 September 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021654

	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. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 her uncharacterized discharge be changed to an honorable or a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That since she is receiving disability (apparently for narcolepsy) her discharge should be changed.  She provides no supporting evidence.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 November 1989.  

On 18 May 1990, the applicant’s commander initiated separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, entry- level performance and conduct.  He cited eight instances of her sleeping in class, two instances of being late for class, one instance of failing a test, one Article 15 for failing to be at her appointed place of duty and one Article 15 for five counts of failure to repair and two counts of willful disobedience of a non-commissioned officer.  

On 23 May 1990, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the separation action.  She submitted statements in her own behalf.  Attached are seven statements by either herself or others on her behalf but it cannot be determined if they were prepared for the separation action or as responses to earlier counseling actions.  Five of the statements (three signed by her) state that she was not asleep as alleged.  

On 29 May 1990, the commander recommended the applicant’s separation.  The recommendation states the “Report of Medical Examination is attached,” but it is not available.  The applicant’s medical records are also not available.

On 18 June 1990, the appropriate commander approved the recommendation.

On 19 July 1990, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, entry-level status performance and conduct.  She had completed 7 months and 20 days of creditable active service.  Her service was uncharacterized.

Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11 sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members who were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, National Guard or Army Reserve, are in an entry level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous service, and have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention.  The following conditions are illustrations of conduct that does not qualify for retention:  cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  An uncharacterized description of service is required for soldiers in an entry level status. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11 sets the policy and prescribes 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.  Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the soldier’s initial entrance of active duty that would have permanently or temporarily disqualified him or her for entry into the military service or entry on active duty had it been detected at that time.  Unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a soldier will be awarded an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status.  

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his employment on active duty.  In pertinent part, it states that according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered the military service.  Manifestations of symptoms of chronic disease from date of entry on active military service (or so close to that date of entry that the disease could not have started in so short a period) will be accepted as proof that the disease existed prior to entrance into active military service.  

Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for, among other areas, enlistment, retention and separation.  Paragraph 2-28 states that narcolepsy is a disqualifyng condition for enlistment.

Title 38, U. S. 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 her rights.  A Chapter 11 discharge is used for entry-level soldiers not qualified for retention for one of several reasons, including inability to meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline.  In addition to sleeping in class, the applicant was counseled/disciplined for failing to be at her appointed place of duty or failure to repair and for disobedience of a non-commissioned officer.  The uncharacterized discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board notes that in at least some of the instances of her being counseled for sleeping in class, the applicant denied she was sleeping.  There is no evidence of record to show she was diagnosed with narcolepsy nor does she supply any such evidence.  Even if there were such evidence, the Board concludes that at most, and in the absence of other disciplinary actions, she would have been separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11.  As an entry-level soldier, an uncharacterized discharge still would have been appropriate.  A medical discharge would not have been appropriate.

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

__mkp___  __clg___  __jpi___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021654	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990922	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE	Uncharacterized	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 11	
DISCHARGE REASON	A93.21	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.	110.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.