MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 July 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001055902

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Anderson		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:  Reconsideration of his request for correction of his records to show he was hospitalized while on a leave status and his status changed from leave to hospitalized, that he be given a lump sum leave settlement; and that he be given continuation of pay until he was medically cleared to return to his civilian job.  He also requests reconsideration of his request that his discharge be corrected to a physical disability separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the evidence he presents shows that the 808th Engineer Company knew of his hospital stay immediately after the accident happened.  He received a Gulf War illness that has rendered him 40 percent disabled.  Shortly after returning to work he talked with the company commander about his options in the military since he could no longer pass the physical fitness test.  They decided to transfer him to control group until he could pass the physical fitness test or until his enlistment was over.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel makes no additional contentions except to state the applicant requests a hearing to prove his case under oath.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 7 June 2000 (docket number AR2000038728).

The applicant provides a letter of support from both his mother and his father.  His father states that on 8 June 1991, the day following the accident, he and the hospital administration lady contacted the unit’s first sergeant to ask for the unit address and other information on the applicant’s activity in the Persian Gulf War.  Three or four days later the company commander and the first sergeant visited the applicant, although the applicant was asleep at the time.  The company commander spoke to the applicant’s doctor.  

A letter from the University of Texas Medical Associates dated 23 July 1991 shows that the applicant was able to return to normal duty effective 23 July 1991.

Subsequent to the applicant’s separation, the VA determined his chest wound to be service connected and rated at zero percent disabling.  The rating was later increased to 20 percent and then increased to 30 percent.

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.  There is still no evidence to show that the applicant was unfit to perform his military duties.  He was returned to normal duty on 23 July 1991.  His retention in his unit was discussed only because he could not pass the physical fitness test, not because he could not perform his duties.  The VA initially rated his disability at zero percent.

2.  The Board finds the statements provided are insufficient evidence to show that the applicant’s unit was immediately notified that he was hospitalized.  The Board would reconsider this contention if the applicant were able to provide notarized statements from the unit commander and first sergeant detailing when they were notified and what steps they took concerning the applicant’s duty status when they were notified.

3.  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.

4.  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___  __hof___  __ena___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055902	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010726	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	121.00	
2.	108.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.