MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 October 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062038

	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	
	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:  That his uncharacterized discharge be changed to a general under honorable conditions discharge or a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the VA has granted service-connection for his injury. An uncharacterized discharge has barred him from student loans to pursue his education.  He provides the VA rating decision as supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 August 1999.  His separation packet is not available.  His VA rating decision indicates that while in basic training it was noted the applicant had a lump in the epigastrium.  He was diagnosed with a symptomatic epigastric hernia and surgery was recommended.  The applicant stated that he refused surgery, at which time he was separated from the service.

On 2 November 1999, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, entry-level performance and conduct.  He had completed 2 months and 28 days of creditable active service and was given a description of service of uncharacterized.  

The VA granted the applicant service connection for a small epigastric hernia with an evaluation of 0 percent effective 3 November 1999.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members who were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, National Guard or Army Reserve, are in an entry level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous service, and have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention.  The following conditions are illustrations of conduct that does not qualify for retention:  cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  Unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a soldier will be awarded an uncharacterized description of service if in an entry-level status.  (For Regular Army soldiers, entry level status is the first 180 days of continuous active duty.)

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.

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.  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.

2.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show he was medically unfit for military duty and so it appears that processing through the physical disability system and a medical discharge would not have been appropriate.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes 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.  The uncharacterized discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The uncharacterized discharge merely means that the applicant was not in the Army long enough for his character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.

3.  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	AR2001062038	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011016	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.