MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000046876

	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. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		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:  In effect, that he needs an additional 13 days in order to obtain VA benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was not provided the information regarding 13 additional days in order to obtain VA benefits, and that he was given partial benefits after receiving credit for 5 months and 18 days of continuous service.  He also states that after receiving a “no-go” on the jeep range, he was told to become a grunt (infantryman), or be discharged.  He further states that he had a Bachelor of Science degree in sociology and that he desired to become a paralegal assistant. 

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

The applicant was administered an entrance examination on 15 March 1979 and his Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) indicated that he was qualified for enlistment with a 111121 physical profile.  

He enlisted on 20 April 1979 as military policeman (95B).

On 28 June 1979, the applicant was relieved from the 95B (military police)
course due to academic failure at Fort McClellan, Alabama.  

On 29 June 1979, the applicant was reassigned to Fort Sam Houston, Texas for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B medical specialist.

On 13 July 1979, the applicant was relieved from the 91B (medical specialist) course due to academic failure.

Between 13 and 16 July 1979, the applicant received four counseling statements concerning academic problems, further training, and discharge procedures.

On 10 August 1979, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, Trainee Discharge Program (TDP).  After consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his proposed separation, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also acknowledge that if he did not have sufficient prior military service, that he understood that due to noncompletion of requisite active duty time, VA and other benefits normally associated with completion of honorable active duty service will be affected.  The applicant further acknowledged that he was ineligible for enlistment in the Army for a period of 2 years after his separation.

On 10 August 1979, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-33, TDP.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s elimination from training in MOS 95B military police and 91B medical specialist, due to academic problems.  The commander also stated that due to the applicant’s hand and eye coordination needed in the military, that he would be unable to complete Advanced Individual Training (AIT).

On 4 September 1979, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-33, Trainee Discharge Program and directed that he furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 7 September 1979. 
He had a total of 4 months and 18 days of creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-200 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Paragraph 5-33, of this regulation, in effect at the time, governed the Trainee Discharge Program.  This program
provided for the separation of service members who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive soldiers or have failed to respond to formal counseling.  The regulation essentially requires that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced,
on the job, or service school training prior to award of a military occupational specialty and must not have completed more than 179 days of active duty on their current enlistment by the date of separation.  The regulation provided that soldiers may be separated when they have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention due to failure to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-
discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.

Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 7, physical profiling, provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment.  Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual 

has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  The individual should receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.  Numerical designator "4" indicates that an individual has one or more medical conditions or physical defects of such severity that performance of military duty must be drastically limited.  The numerical designator "4" does not necessarily mean that the individual is unfit because of physical disability as defined in Army Regulation 635-40.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was not provided the information regarding 13 additional days in order to obtain VA benefits.  However, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contention.

2.  The Board also notes that the applicant entered the military with a physical profile of 111121.  The applicant’s numerical indicator “2” which pertains to “eyes” indicate that he had a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restriction in assignments within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  The Board further notes that the applicant’s commander stated that due to the applicant’s hand and eye coordination needed in the military, that he would be unable to complete Advance Individual Training (AIT).  However, this was evident in his failure to complete AIT in MOS 95B and 91B.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  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.  

6.  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

___ro___  __sk___  ___tk____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046876	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010222	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19790907	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200, C, 5-33	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.