MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:              25 July 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR2000034971

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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 records be corrected to show that he received a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  His separation documents didn’t say he was medically retired.

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

He was inducted on active duty on 11 January 1967, was awarded the military occupational specialty of light weapons infantryman, and was promoted to pay grade E-5.  He served in Vietnam from 15 June 1967 to 19 February 1968, and in Korea from 20 February 1968 to 26 October 1968.

He was wounded by enemy fire on 2 February 1968.  His wound consisted of second degree burns to his back.

On 25 July 1968 the applicant had a separation physical examination.  That examination determined that he was medically qualified for retention without any physical profile restrictions.

On 25 October 1968 the applicant was honorably released from active duty due to his having insufficient time remaining on his active service obligation to warrant reassigning him.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.  For example, a noncommissioned officer who receives above average evaluation reports and passes Army Physical Fitness Tests (which have been modified to comply with the individual’s physical profile limitations) after the individual was diagnosed as having the medical disqualification would probably be found to be fit for duty.  The fact that the individual has a medically disqualifying condition does not mandate the person’s separation from the service.  Fitness for duty, within the parameters of the individual’s grade and military specialty, is the determining factor in regards to separation.  If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an 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 that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service.  In this regard, the Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was determined medically qualified without profile limitations subsequent to his being wounded and just prior to his separation.  As such, there was no basis for referring him to a PEB for consideration of a medical separation.

2.  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

__tsk____  _sk_____  ___jhk___  DENY APPLICATION

		   Carl W. S. Chun
		   Director, Army Board for Correction
		   of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000034971	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000725	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.