PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            21 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025443

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

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

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that block 23 (type of separation, of her 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that block 23 of her DD Form 214 lists her type of separation as retirement which is an error.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she served on active duty for 
3 years and 6 days, from 9 September 1986 to 14 September 1989, and the highest rank she attained during her service was specialist/E-4.  

5.  On 8 August 1989, a physical evaluation board (PEB) determined that the applicant had a 10 percent disability rating based on her chronic mechanical back pain with scoliosis, a condition that existed prior to her entering military service, that had been aggravated while she was on active duty.  The PEB recommended that she be separated from the service with severance pay.  On 21 August 1989, the Army’s Personnel Command (PERSCOM) directed, based on the findings of the PEB, that the applicant be discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, for physical disability with severance pay.

6.  Accordingly, on 14 September 1989 the applicant was honorably separated, prior to the expiration of her term of service, for physical disability with severance pay.  The DD Form 214 issued the applicant at separation listed Retirement in block 23 (type of separation).  

7.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System according to the provisions of chapter 61, title 10, United States Code 
(10 USC 61) and Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1332.18.  It sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. If a soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this regulation provides for disposition of the soldier according to applicable laws and regulations.  Paragraph 4-24e, in effect at the time, provided for the final disposition of members and stated, in pertinent part, that PERSCOM will issue disposition instructions for separation for physical disability with severance pay (10 USC 1203 or 1206). 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  After carefully examining the evidence of record, the Board found that the type of separation (Retirement) listed in block 23 of the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant was in error.  Under the provisions of Army regulations, in effect at the time, the correct type of separation to record in block 23 for members separated for physical disability with severance pay, would have been “Discharge”.  The Board concluded, in the interest of propriety, that this error should be corrected at this time. 

2.  Additionally, the type of separation listed on the applicant’s DD Form 214 should have been based on the disposition instructions provided by PERSCOM at the time.  These instructions directed that the applicant be discharged by reason of disability with severance pay, effective 14 September 1989.  There is no evidence of record that Retirement was ever a consideration in processing the applicant’s separation.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing, in block 23 (type of separation) of the DD Form 214, that the type of separation received by the individual concerned was Discharge vice the current entry, which shows the type of separation as Retirement.  

BOARD VOTE:  

__dw____  __mw___  ___hof___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Hubert O. Fry, Jr.____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025443	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1989/09/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-40 C4	
DISCHARGE REASON	Physical Disability, Severance Pay	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.