MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           17 SEPTEMBER 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072716

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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, the applicant requests physical disability retirement or separation.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was 17 years old and his recruiter lied to him, saying that he would become a good soldier.  He was tested, mentally and physically, but does not know how the recruiter got him into the Army.  However, 23 days later he broke down in a staff sergeant’s office [resulting in his discharge].  In 1999 his brother was murdered, his mother died from the shock, and his stepfather died one month later from an overdose.  This affected his mind and he sought treatment from the VA; however, he was told that he did not have enough service time to warrant treatment.  He requests a service connected disability so he can use the hospital that he has been going to for 25 years.  He should not have been in the Army, and would not have enlisted if the recruiter had not lied to him.  He has post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The applicant provides a copy of a 4 April 2002 letter from a pastor to a Member of Congress (MC), asking the MC to help the applicant in his concerns.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 16 September 1974 and was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for training.  

On 2 October 1974 the applicant’s commanding officer notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him [under the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP)] before he had 180 duty days.  He informed the applicant that his psychiatric history precluded him from becoming a productive soldier, that he lacked the maturity and emotional stability necessary for a soldier, and those reasons together with his expressed desire for a discharge made his continuance on active duty unjustified.  

The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of the proposed honorable discharge and stated that he understood that due to non-completion of requisite active duty time, VA and other benefits would be affected. He stated that he did not desire to have counsel assist him in explaining the discharge procedures, that he did not desire to have a separation medical examination, and that he did not desire to make statements in his own behalf.  

On 3 October 1974 the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged and that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  He was discharged on 8 October 1974.  The authority given for his discharge is a         Department of the Army message.  The applicant had 23 days of service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 of the regulation provided, at that time, for the administrative separation of individuals who had demonstrated during the first 180 days of training that they lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become effective soldiers.  This program, known as the Trainee Discharge Program, mandated the award of an honorable discharge.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

Army Regulation 635-40 states in pertinent part that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  
 
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 should not have been enlisted in the Army as he so states, as evidenced by his discharge with less than one month of service.  Also evident, however, is that his condition, as depicted by his commanding officer, was not caused or aggravated by the Army.  His discharge under the provisions of the trainee discharge program, in effect at that time, was proper.   

2.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

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

__EJA___  __TBR__  __KAH __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072716	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020917	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.