MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 August 2001      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001055263

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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, reconsideration of his request for a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged due to occupational illnesses or disorders in his workplace.  He contends that these illnesses started while he was in the Army and that his allergies were aggravated on a daily basis by the cleaning solvents and shoe polishes he utilized.  He also contends that as a result of his aggravated allergies, his body developed an allergy hypersensitivity immune system to genetic disorders diagnosed as multi-factorial disorders.  In support of his application, he submits a letter, dated 16 September 1998, to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  A Memorandum of Consideration is not available to reflect the basis for the denial of the applicant’s case on 19 May 1965.  Therefore, this case is being considered “de novo”.

On 9 August 1964 the applicant underwent an induction medical examination and was found qualified for induction with a physical profile of 112111. 

The applicant was inducted on 9 September 1964.  

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 22 October 1964 and was diagnosed with an inadequate personality.  The psychiatrist determined that the applicant was mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the appropriate administrative regulation.

While in basic training, on 23 November 1964, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.  

After consulting with counsel the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

On 3 December 1964 the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.    

On 9 December 1964 the applicant underwent a separation medical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 112111.  

Accordingly, on 21 December 1964, the applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (a general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability due to inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.  He had served 3 months and 
13 days of total active service.  
 
On 14 March 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable.

Army Regulation 635-209, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability based on inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire record.

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.

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 noted the applicant’s contentions that he was discharged due to occupational illnesses or disorders in his workplace and that these illnesses started while he was in the Army.  However, service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.  At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 112111.  Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for unsuitability, not as the result of a medical condition. 

2.  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.  

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

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

INW_____  FNE____  GJW____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055263	
SUFFIX		
RECON	19650519	
DATE BOARDED	20010809	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)  Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable on 19730314	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19641221	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-209  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability due to inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.