MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           30 April 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067912

	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. Arthur A. Omartian 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaugnessy, 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 upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was born with a heart condition (Bicuspid Aortic Valve) that was not found during his pre-enlistment physical examination.  He indicates this condition was diagnosed while an employee with a private contractor at the Stennis Space Center, Mississippi in 1998.  He should not have been able to enlist in the military service.  Further, he contends that this medical condition was the reason he was separated from the military with an uncharacterized discharge.

He contends that he could not keep his job with the private contractor as a Security Patrolman because of his medical condition.

He provides a letter of support from the private contractor project manager indicating he was employed from 13 February 1998 until his resignation effective 8 September 1998.  He performed his traffic enforcement duties with a high degree of professionalism and was an extremely reliable employee.

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

On 23 November 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.

On 21 January 1986, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and training of choice, college option and cash bonus enlistment option ($5,000).

During the period 24 January to 2 April 1986, he was formally counseled on      24 occasions for his failure to pass physical fitness tests, failure to maintain his living area, failure to maintain his personal appearance, and his lack of initiative.

On 2 April 1986, the unit commander notified the applicant of his initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 with an uncharacterized discharge based on his apathetic attitude and making no effort to develop proficiency in soldier tasks.  He was advised of his rights.  He did not desire legal counsel and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

A Report of Mental Status Evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.

On 10 April 1986, the appropriate separation authority approved the request and directed the applicant’s uncharacterized discharge.

On 15 April 1986, he received an uncharacterized discharge under the above-cited regulation.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he had 2 months and 23 days of creditable service.

On 27 August 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status within 180 days of service.  This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  The separation policy applies to soldiers who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline.  The regulation provides for uncharacterized service for separation under this chapter.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 applicant was properly separated in accordance with regulations then in effect, and he has not shown otherwise.  He is not entitled to a change of the characterization of his discharge from uncharacterized to honorable.

2.  There is nothing in the available records, nor has the applicant provided any evidence that would support his contention that his alleged medical condition was the cause for his apathetic attitude or his lack of proficiency in soldier tasks.

3.  His contention that he was erroneously enlisted into the Army is not supported by the evidence of record.

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

__aao___  _teo____  _hfo____    DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067917	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020430	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.