MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057478

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John E. Denning		Member	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		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 Report of Medical Examination 
(SF 88) dated 5 August 1974, should be corrected to show that the purpose of the examination was to qualify him for travel to Germany in support of operation “Reforger”.  In addition, the applicant requests that he be provided a copy of his medical records and that any reference to his arrest for drug possession that was included in his separation packet be removed from his records.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the purpose of the physical examination documented in the SF 88, dated 5 August 1974, was to confirm his medical qualification to travel to Germany in support of operation “Reforger” and was not a separation physical examination.  He also claims his shot record, dates of dosage, and the Doctor’s signature were altered.  Finally, he contends that the reference to his being arrested for drug possession that was included in his separation packet should be removed from his records because he was never formally charged for this offense or for possession of drugs during his military career.

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

On 20 February 1974, he entered the Army for 3 years.  He completed basic combat training, advanced individual training, and was subsequently assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.  His record confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2.

On 4 December 1974, while assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for twice failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

The applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability.  The commander stated that the basis for the separation action was the applicant’s apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively.  In support of his reasons, the commander provided an explanation of the circumstances that led him to take separation action.  Included in this explanation were examples of the applicant’s propensity for misconduct, which contained a comment that the applicant had been incarcerated by civil authorities over the Christmas holidays for possession of drugs.  However, unsuitability and not misconduct, and more specifically this incident was not used as a basis for the separation action.  

The applicant acknowledged that he was notified of the separation action and after being advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation and its effects, and the rights available to him, he elected to waive consideration of his case by a board of officers and his right to consulting counsel.  Further, the applicant elected not submit a rebuttal statement in his own behalf and there is no evidence he took issue or contested the statement in regard to his incarceration by civil authorities for drug possession at that time. 

On 17 January 1975, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority, who directed the applicant receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  Accordingly, on 3 February 1975, the applicant was discharged from the Army after having served a total of 11 months and 14 days of active military service.

The applicant’s record included an SF 88 and a Report of Medical History 
(SF 93), both dated 5 August 1974, which indicated that the purpose of the physical examination conducted on that date was for Chapter 13 separation.  The applicant prepared and signed the SF 93 confirming this reason and his signature was also contained in block 73 (Notes) of the SF 88 confirming he reviewed the form and was in good health.  The applicant’s shot record was not on file and was not made available to this Board by the applicant. 

On 20 January 1999, the applicant requested copies of all his personnel and medical records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).  On 
9 February 1999, the NPRC responded via a Reply Concerning Military Records (NA Form 13044), in which, it was indicated he was provided copies of all his medical records.  

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  A general discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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 contentions that the purpose of his physical examination was not for separation, that his shot record was altered, and that the remark in regard to his incarceration for drug possession should be removed from his records but finds there is insufficient evidence to support these claims. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the purpose of the contested physical examination was for Chapter 13 separation.  This fact was confirmed by the applicant with his signature on both the SF 93 and the notes section of the 
SF 88.  Lacking convincing independent evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no reason to question these documents. 

3.  Given the lack of evidence in regard to the applicant’s contention that the dosage of drugs and the Doctor’s signature on his shot record were altered, the Board is unable to render a specific finding on this issue.  However, it finds no reason to question the validity of the other available medical forms and records and thus, finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support this claim.

4.  The Board also evaluated the applicant’s request that the reference to his being incarcerated by civil authorities for drug possession be removed from his records.  However, the Board notes the applicant was processed for separation for unsuitability, based on his apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively.  The reason for his separation was not misconduct based on the incident in question.  Further, there is no other official military record entry or documents on file that refer to this incident.  Therefore, the Board finds the comment in the separation recommendation in regard to this incident was not prejudicial in the separation process and provides no basis for relief. 

5.  The Board notes the applicant’s request that he be provided a copy of all his medical records and also the fact that he was provided a copy of all his medical records by the NPRC in 1999.  However, this Board is not the custodian of military records and therefore is unable to satisfy this request.  If the applicant is unable to locate the specific documents he desires in the medical records already provided him by NPRC, he may again query the NPRC and request additional records or check with his local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to see if they have kept copies of his medical records on file. 

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

_   FNE __  __JED__  _ _TLP   _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057478	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/09/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750203	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Personality Disorder	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A01.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.