MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            6 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050512

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 his records be corrected to reflect that he was discharged by reason of disability and awarded a “service connected disability rating.”

APPLICANT STATES:  He was separated two days shy of attaining the required 180 days of active service in order to be eligible for disability benefits.  He noted that he received two different versions of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and contends that document should not have been altered after his separation and is evidence that his separation was intended to be for medical reasons.  He maintains that he was in a “medical hold-over company” at the time of his separation and that the Army felt his medical condition was serious enough to warrant separation and as such he should have been retained the additional two days in order to be eligible for benefits.  In support of his request he submits copies of the DD Form 214 he received at the time of his 1974 separation and a copy of the DD Form 214 he received in 1993 when he requested a replacement copy of the document.

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

He entered active duty on 20 February 1974 and successfully completed basic training prior to being assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia for advanced individual training as a military policeman on 22 April 1974.  

On 24 May 1974 the applicant’s unit commander requested that he be transferred from the training environment to Headquarters and Headquarters Company of the Military Police Brigade at Fort Gordon “pending re-evaluation of [his] profile.”  The request noted the applicant had been diagnosed with a seizure disorder and was “subject to sudden loss of consciousness.”  He was scheduled for re-evaluation of his physical profile on 1 August 1974.  The reassignment was effective on 10 June 1974 and the applicant was assigned duties as a “duty soldier.”  Other than this one statement there were no medical records in files available to the Board or provided by the applicant.

On 7 August 1974 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the trainee discharge program.  His commander noted the applicant had been AWOL (absent without leave) on three different occasions and had been punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on two occasions.  He noted that he was initiating the separation action because the applicant had 

“demonstrated that [he was] not qualified for retention because [he] cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training due to [his] demonstrated deficiencies in attitude, motivation and maturity.”

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights.  

The recommendation was approved and on 16 August 1974 the applicant was honorably discharged.  He had 5 months and 20 days of active Federal service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 of the regulation provided, at that time, 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.  This program, known as the Trainee Discharge Program, mandated the award of an honorable discharge.

Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.  Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3a, provided, in pertinent part, that performance of duty despite an impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary, congenital, and other EPTS (existed prior to service) conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnosed or should have been diagnosed.  Army Regulation 635-40 also provides that individuals who are unfit by reason of physical disability neither incurred nor aggravated during any period of service will be separated without entitlement to benefits.

Army Regulation 635-40 also states that while individuals with less than 6 months of military service may be separated or retired by reason of physical disability they are not entitled to receive severance pay although they may apply to the VA for disability compensation.

At the time of the applicant’s 1974 separation Army Regulation 635-5, which established the policy and provisions for the preparation and distribution of the 

DD Form 214, provided for the preparation of two versions of the DD Form 214 which were intended for distribution to various agencies at the discretion of the individual depending on the purpose for which the document was to be used.  In most cases an individual was provided copies of both versions of the DD Form 214; one (copy 2) containing information in all items and the other (copy 1) where certain items (authority and reason and reenlistment code) were omitted.  Some agencies required the full separation document and other required only the sanitized version.  Both versions of the document are correct and the applicant was provided this information in an earlier letter from the Board in response to a separation application questioning the validity of the two copies of his separation document which he had in his possession.

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 that the differences in the copies of the applicant’s DD Form 214 which he received at the time of his separation and some years later at his request are not in error and do not indicate that they were altered to mislead or cover-up the basis for his separation.

2.  The Board notes that while the applicant may have been in an administrative hold situation at the time of his separation from active duty there is no indication that he was unable to perform the duties he was assigned or that retaining him until he had completed 180 days of active duty would have resulted in his separation or retirement by reason of disability.  Army Regulations provided for the separation of individuals by reason of disability regardless of the number of days of active duty and only prohibited the receipt of severance pay by those separated with less than 6 months of active service.

3.  The Board also contends, based on the evidence in available records, that in all probability had the applicant not been administratively separated under the Trainee Discharge Program his seizure disorder would either have been determined not to be unfitting or determined that it was neither incurred nor aggravated by his military service and thus not a basis for disability compensation.

4.  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 that requirement.

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

__sk____  __ewl___  __hbo___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050512	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010306	
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.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.