MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050969

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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:  In effect, that the reason for his discharge be changed from unsatisfactory performance to medical.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that due to his medical condition he was continuously at medical appointments and as a result he had problems keeping up with the rest of his class in advanced individual training (AIT).  Given his medical problems, the applicant contends the reason for his discharge was unjust and he requests that it be changed at this time. 

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

On 7 March 1985, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and on 11 May 1985, he reported to Fort Belvoir, Virginia to attend AIT in military occupational specialty (MOS) 52C (Utilities Equipment Repairer).  

The applicant failed the 52C course and in July 1985 he was reassigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina to attend AIT in MOS 71L (Administrative Specialist), where he began training on 8 August 1985.  On 27 August 1985, based on his failure to show improvement in his 71L training course, he was rehabilitatively reassigned to another unit to restart his 71L MOS training.  

Between 28 August and 23 September 1985, the applicant was formally counseled on 11 separate occasions for several sub-standard performance, motivation, and conduct related issues.  On 17 September 1985, the applicant’s training battalion commander determined that he should not be afforded the opportunity to continue training and directed the unit commander to initiate separation action against the applicant for unsatisfactory performance. 

On 18 September 1985, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and while it was noted that he suffered from optic neuritis, he was still cleared for retention/separation by competent medical authority. 

On 20 September 1985, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated against him for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was also advised by his commander that this separation action could result in his receiving a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The reason cited by the commander for taking this action was the applicant’s failure to satisfactorily progress in his second attempt at completing AIT in MOS 71L and his not developing sufficiently to warrant further rehabilitation attempts. 

On 23 September 1985, the applicant was counseled by his first sergeant and advised that his discharge was being recommended based on his lack of motivation and poor attitude.  The applicant signed this counseling statement indicating he concurred with its contents.  

Also on 23 September 1985, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, and of his rights.  He completed his election of rights by acknowledging that he was not entitled to have his case heard by a board of officers because he had less than 
6 years of military service and a discharge under other than honorable conditions was not warranted.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 2 October 1985, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation for unsatisfactory performance and directed he receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  Accordingly, on 7 October 1985, the applicant was separated after completing a total of 7 months and 1 day of active military service. 

In connection with the processing of this case an advisory opinion was requested of and received from the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) of the Army, dated 27 August 2001.  The opinion indicated that the applicant’s records had been reviewed by the OTSG Ophthalmology consultant who had concluded that the applicant met medical retention standards and did not require a medical board.  The consultant further commented that at the time of the applicant’s separation, optic neuritis was not listed separately as a diagnosis requiring referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB).  

The OTSG consultant further commented that neuritis in general only required referral to a MEB when it manifested by more than moderate, permanent functional impairment and there was no evidence in the available medical records of the applicant that shows such an impairment.  The medical records show the applicant’s visual acuity at the time of separation differed little from his enlistment physical examination.  Finally an ophthalmology note in the record, dated 16 September 1985, indicates the applicant was receiving no treatment and was able to perform his military tasks.  

On 29 August 2001, the applicant was provided a copy of the OTSG advisory opinion in order to be provided the opportunity to rebut or respond to its contents. To date he has failed to reply.  

There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade or change of reason for his discharge within the 15 year statute of limitations.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance.  It provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member when in their judgment the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. 

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 his medical condition impaired his ability to serve and as a result the reason for his discharge should be changed to medical.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s discharge process was accomplished in accordance with applicable law and regulations and accurately reflects his overall record of service.  It further shows that his separation was not based solely on his inability to complete his course work but that his lack of motivation and sub-standard personal conduct were also contributing factors. 

3.  In addition, medical experts determined that the applicant’s medical problems did not impair his ability sufficiently to disqualify him from further service, as evidenced in the OTSG opinion.  Therefore, lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board finds relief is not warranted in this case. 

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 this 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

__RVO__  ___RKS__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050969	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1985/10/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.