MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            27 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024337

	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. Edward Williamson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was unfair and that he was discharged with 179 days of active duty service, one day shy of being eligible for Veterans benefits.  He also states that he informed his chain of command of his “schizophrenic” condition; however, no response or action was taken in regards to his medication that was prescribed for him.  He further states that he was not provided the opportunity to seek counsel and his condition was never documented in his official personnel files.  He goes on to state that he is unable to remain employed and that he currently has a benefits claim pending with the VA, in which he is asking that he be granted 100 percent disability for his prevention of living a fruitful and productive life.  He concludes by stating that the stress and violence of military life aggravated his condition and that the Army discharged him to avoid addressing the issues and explanations of a medical discharge.

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

The applicant enlisted on 19 January 1980 as a tactical telecommunications
Center Operator (72E).

Beginning in April 1980, the applicant began receiving numerous counseling statements for instances of failure to be at his appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, relief from guard duty, smoking in formation, failure to meet deadlines, failure to maintain his common areas, failure to prepare for inspection and failure of his Vocational Battery Test.

On 27 May 1980, the applicant was relieved from 72E (Tactical Communications
Center Operator) training due to his moderate typing ability.  

On 14 July 1980, the Assistant Adjutant General at Fort Gordon, Georgia, indicated that the applicant was available for a new training assignment because his retest scores in MOS 72E were too low and recommended that the applicant be discharged.

On 16 July 1980, the applicant was notified of pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-33, Trainee Discharge Program.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s inability to adapt socially or emotionally to military life, and his failure to maintain minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training due to his lack of aptitude, ability motivation or self-discipline and character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.

The applicant acknowledge notification of his proposed separation, elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf, and indicated that he did not desire to have a separation medical examination.

The applicant also acknowledged that he was ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for a period of two years after his separation.

On 22 July 1980,the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-33, Trainee Discharge Program and directed that he honorably discharged.  He was discharged on 25 July 1980.  He had a total of 5 months and 28 days of creditable service.

The applicant’s medical records were not present in the records reviewed by the Board.  However, his 27 May 1980 Retrainee Reassignment Information Sheet indicated that he had an 112111 physical profile with assignment restrictions of flat feet.

There is no evidence or indication in the applicant’s records to show that he a “schizophrenic” condition.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Paragraph 5-33 of this regulation, in effect at the time, governed the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP).  This program provided for the separation of service members who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive soldiers or have failed to respond to formal counseling.  The regulation essentially requires that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual, on the job or service school training prior to award of a military occupational specialty and must not have completed of more than 179 days of active duty on their current enlistment by the date of separation.  The regulation provided that soldiers may be separated when they have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention due to failure to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet 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.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his discharge was unfair, that he was discharged shy of one day of being eligible for Veteran’s benefits and that he informed his chain of command of his “schizophrenic” condition.  
However, evidence of record shows that he had an 112111 physical profile and indicated that he did not desire to have a separation medical examination and was discharged under the Trainee Discharge Program, not as a result of a medical condition.

2.  The applicant has failed to present 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.

3.  The applicant’s service records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.

4.  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.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

6.  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.  

7.  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

EW_____  MW_____  KLW____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024337	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990527	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800725	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  110/MED		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.