MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           2 April 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067559

	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. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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:  It cannot be determined what type of record correction the applicant is requesting but possibly a change in his character of service.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes he is being unjustly denied the G.I. Bill.  He contends that VA Form 20-8993 states that if he were discharged for a pre-existing medical condition he would still be able to receive the benefits.  He does not provide the VA Form 20-8993 or any other supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 March 2001 in part for the Montgomery G.I. Bill Educational Incentive Program.  

On 11 June 2001, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11 for failing to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  He had completed 3 months and 5 days of creditable active service and was given an uncharacterized description of service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating enlisted members.  In pertinent part, it states that 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.)

The Department of Veterans Affairs pamphlet, Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents, 1998 edition states that the Montgomery G.I. Bill (Active Duty) provides a program of education benefits to individuals who enter active duty for the first time after 30 June 1985 and receive an honorable discharge.  Service members have their military pay reduced by $100 a month for the first 12 months of active duty.  This money is not refundable.  

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.  Given the reason for the applicant’s separation and the length of time he served on active duty, the uncharacterized description of service he received was appropriate.  

3.  The applicant did not provide a copy of the VA For 20-8993 he mentions; however, the Army has no jurisdiction over the Department of Veterans Affairs.  It appears he should be directing his request to that Department for an exception to policy.  

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

__wtm___  __clg___  __rks___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067559	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020402	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010611	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, para 5-11 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A04.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.