MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 April 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067764

	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:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 discharge be changed to “under special circumstances.”

APPLICANT STATES:  That her mother requested she return home to help care for her father, a veteran who was disabled due to two major strokes and several mini-strokes.  Her brother was too young to help.  She provides as supporting evidence her Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, and an 11 May 1999 letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs informing her that she is not eligible for disability benefits because she served on active duty for less than 90 days. 

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1971.  

On 27 January 1972, the applicant’s company commander initiated separation action under Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to the applicant’s apathy.  On 1 February 1972, the applicant was advised of her rights by counsel. She waived her right to consideration of her case by a board of officers; waived personal appearance before a board; and waived representation by counsel.  She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf. 

On 31 January 1972, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 1 February 1972, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be separated for unsuitability.  The commander stated the applicant failed to meet the minimum standards of basic training.  Her bed was poorly made; her wall lockers were disorganized.  Her personal appearance was substandard.  She refused assistance from her platoon sergeant.  She continued to receive the same demerits day after day.  Her negative attitude toward all training and her lack of response to counseling and assistance were evidence of her apathy.  She had been assigned to two basic training companies but in each case she failed to respond to counseling and rehabilitative efforts.

On 7 February 1972, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

On 11 February 1972, the applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  She had completed 2 months and 26 days of creditable active service.  

On 16 January 1973, the applicant applied for a change in her reenlistment code. She indicated in her application that she requested a discharge because she was needed at home and therefore she could not perform to her full potential within the system.  However, she was told that she was ineligible for discharge due to the fact that she was not the sole means of family income.  In effect, an unsuitability discharge was the only way she could get out.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members were subject to separation for unsuitability for inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, 
and inability to expend effort constructively, alcoholism, and enuresis.  A general under honorable conditions characterization of service was normally 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.  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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with regulations applicable at the time.  The narrative reason for separation was appropriate given the provisions under which the applicant was separated.  

3.  Although the only evidence is the applicant’s own statement, the Board acknowledges that she may have requested discharge due to family problems and an unsuitability discharge was the only remedy her command could offer her. A general discharge under honorable conditions was normally appropriate and would have been appropriate considering the commander’s statement given in support of the recommendation for separation.  Yet, the applicant was given a fully honorable discharge.  However, there is no category of separation of “under special circumstances.”  Unfortunately for circumstances occurring almost 30 years later, she was discharged prior to completing 90 days of active service.  

4.  Regrettably, 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

__kak___  __mdm___  __tl____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067764	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020423	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.