MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           21 February 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001060011

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 her separation be corrected to physical disability. 

APPLICANT STATES: That she was not able to perform physical training because she had injured both knees.  She indicates she has a 20 percent service-connected disability assigned by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

On 12 September 1990, the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve.

On 9 January 1991, she was ordered to active duty for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 92B (Medical Laboratory Specialist).

On 8 April 1991, she was academically relieved from the Medical Laboratory Specialist Course.

On 6 August 1991, the unit commander notified her of the initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, based on her unsatisfactory performance, specifically that she had been academically relieved from her training and had declined to be reclassified into another MOS.  She was advised of her rights.  She waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The appropriate separation authority directed her release from active duty with an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

On 15 August 1991, she was honorably separated under the above-cited regulation.  Her separation document indicates she had 7 months and 7 days of creditable service.

On 30 November 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board found her discharge to be proper and equitable and denied her request for upgrade.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  Army policy states that a general discharge, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent.

This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs.  The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper.  There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.

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 no evidence available in the record that the applicant had a medical problem or that her discharge was related to a knee disability.

2.  The reason for the discharge was proper and equitable; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a change of reason for discharge.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.

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

_gdp____  _tap____  __mhm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060011	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.