MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                       28 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:               AR2000042828

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 honorable discharge should be changed to a medical discharge.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he was inducted on 24 July 1969.

The applicant’s medical records were not present in the records reviewed by the Board. 

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 which is authenticated in his own hand, shows that on 7 October 1969, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-9, for
failure to meet medical fitness standards.  He was furnished an Honorable 
Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 2 months and 14 days of creditable service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-9 specifically provides that soldiers who are 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 or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated.  The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the soldier is in an entry level status.  Army Regulation 635-200 states that a soldier is in an entry level status if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.

Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5, provides, in pertinent part, that if a soldier is processed for failure to meet procurement fitness standards within the first six months of entry on active duty and the condition existed prior to the term of service, then the soldier will be discharged in an entry level status with uncharacterized 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.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 5-9, for failure to meet medical fitness standards.  Although his medical records were not available for review by the Board, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation appear to be appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  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 this requirement.

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:

RVO____  EMW____  DPH____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042828	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000928	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19691007	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . 635-200, C-5-9	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.