MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  16 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028648

	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. Theodore G. Heartley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch		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:  Reconsideration of his request for disability separation or retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant did not make a statement.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a cover memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 15 March 1978 (COPY ATTACHED).  NOTE:  A copy of the Board’s decision document, memorandum of consideration, was not available in his military records and this request is reviewed de novo.

Despite the absence of any new contentions by the applicant, the Board reexamined his record of military service and DD Form 214, separation document.  He enlisted for 3 years under the light weapons infantry training option with a follow-on assignment to Korea.  He entered active duty in the Regular Army on 8 December 1975.  He successfully completed his basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and attended advanced individual training at Fort Polk, Louisiana.  

A DD Form 3349, medical condition – physical profile record, signed by a medical officer, indicated that a review of his medical records and medical examination on 30 March 1976, qualified him for a 30-day limited duty including no Army Physical Fitness Test, no running and marching based on a healing stress fracture of his proximal left tibia.  This document further indicated that his limited duty profile automatically ended after 30 days on 30 April 1976.

His DD Form 214 indicated that he separated with an honorable characterization of service on 12 April 1976 under the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) as set forth in Army Regulation 635-200 and Department of the Army (DA) message (MSG) 011510Z dated August 1973.  He had completed 4 months and 5 days of creditable service.  Documentation pertaining to notification, acknowledgement, and approval of the discharge are not in his available records.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  DA MSG 011510Z established policy and procedure for the TDP and later became part of Chapter 5.  The TDP, in effect at that time, provided for the administrative separation of individuals who had demonstrated during the first 180 days of training that they lacked the 
necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become effective soldiers and mandated the award of an honorable discharge.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred and will, if it appears as though a member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a MEB.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a PEB for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and specialty with the medically disqualifying 
condition.  The fact that an individual has a medically disqualifying condition does not mandate separation from the service.  Fitness for duty, within the boundaries of the individual’s grade and military specialty, is the determining factor regarding separation.  If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it will recommend a percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether that individual will be discharged with severance pay or retired.  An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies the individual from further military service.  In this regard, the Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thereby compensating the individual for the loss of a career. 

A VA disability rating decision document dated 14 December 1977, indicated that after his separation, he incurred a fracture to his proximal left tibia and fibula.  A VA examination did not find any residuals to the stress fracture of his left tibia.  The VA rated the healed stress fracture to his left tibia at 0% as of 8 September 1977.

The aforementioned not withstanding, there was nothing in the evidence of record that indicated any issues raised by the applicant were omitted or not considered by the Board’s prior determination.

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 overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.  

2.  In the absence of a complete record of his separation, the Board presumes administrative regularity in the processing of his separation that appears accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  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

__JP___  __CP___  ___OT__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028648	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000316	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19761204	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	NA	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.