MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            31 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043437

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		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 the Report of Medical History (SF Form 89) dated 16 February 1964 be corrected to reflect that he did not review or sign the form.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he never had the opportunity to review and sign the SF Form 89 and that his signature was forged on that document.  He also states that any reasonable mind can detect that the signature is not his and in support of his application he submits a copy of his entrance and separation physicals. 

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

He enlisted in Seattle, Washington with parental consent on 8 May 1961 for a period of 3 years.  He served until he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) in the rank of Private (E-2) on 27 April 1964, as an early overseas returnee.  He had served 2 years, 11 months and 19 days of total active service and had 1 day of lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL).

The enlistment physicals provided by the applicant contain his signature and although they are not exactly alike, there are similarities between the two.  The Board notes that other signatures contained in his records, though not all alike, are similar in one way or another.  In addition, the applicant’s signature on his application to the Board does not match either the enlistment or separation physical. 

A review of the separation physical reveals personal information about the applicant that routinely comes from the individual being examined and is completed by the individual as well.

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.  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.

2.  The Board finds that the applicant’s contention that his signature on his separation physical was forged is not supported by either the evidence of record or the evidence submitted with his application. 

3.  While the Board does not pretend to be handwriting analysis experts, a review of a variety of signatures contained in his records as well as the current signature on his application to the Board, appears to reveal that no two of the signatures are exactly alike but that they all do contain similar characteristics.

4.  Accordingly, the Board finds no evidence to suggest that his signature on his separation physical was forged or any basis (motive) for anyone to do so.  Additionally, he has provided no evidence to dispute the information contained on his separation physical examination.

5.  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

__eja ___  ___alr___  __bfh ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043437	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/31	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  269	124.0000/CHG PHYSICAL	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.