RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            25 NOVEMBER 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086149

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the authority for his 1997 separation from active duty be changed from Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 
5-17, to Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-16.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he recently attempted to join the Armed Forces and was told that he could not proceed with his application because his 1997 separation document indicated that he had previous left the service “under a medical discharge.”  He states that he was discharged in 1997 to attend school and not because of any medical reasons.  He notes that the narrative reason for his separation (item 28) and his separation code are both consistent with being separated early in order to attend school.  He states that authority for his separation (paragraph 5-17) is incorrect.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his 1997 separation document and extracts from Army Regulation 635-200 to support his application.

4.  The applicant’s request was accepted via a Department of Defense Form 293, rather than on a Department of Defense Form 149.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on 6 June 1997.  The application submitted in this case is dated 8 February 2003.  

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty for a period of 3 years on 1 September 1994.  As a result of his enlistment, his scheduled separation date would have been established as 31 August 1997.

4.  On 17 April 1997 the applicant submitted a request to be released from active duty early in order to attend a field training encampment as part of a program to enter an Air Force Reserve Officer Training Program at the University of Miami.  Included with his application was a statement from the Department of the Air Force, Air University, indicating that the applicant had been awarded a 2 year Professional Officer Corps Incentive Scholarship to begin in the fall of 1997.  The statement also noted that the applicant was to begin an initial field training encampment on 8 July 1997.

5.  In the processing of the applicant’s request to be released from active duty with the Army, his chain of command cited Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-2 as the basis for the applicant’s request.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) indicates that paragraph 16-2 provided for the discharge of enlisted Soldiers for acceptance into a program leading to a commission or warrant officer appointment.

7.  While the final disposition of the applicant’s request was not in records available to the Board, the applicant was honorably discharged on 6 June 1997, less than 90 days prior to his originally scheduled separation date of 31 August 1997.

8.  The applicant’s separation document indicates that the narrative reason for his separation was “attend school” and his SPD (separation program designator) code is consistent with the narrative reason.  However, the authority for his discharge is recorded as “AR 635-200, PARA 5-17” on his separation document.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17 provides for the administrative separation of enlisted Soldiers for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability which could potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty, including such things as chronic airsickness, chronic seasickness, sleepwalking, dyslexia, severe nightmares, or claustrophobia.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-16 provides for the administrative separation of enlisted Soldiers up to 90 days before their scheduled separation date to further their education.  To qualify for such a separation a Soldier must not be mission essential, it must be clearly established that the specific school term for which the Soldier is seeking early separation is academically the most opportune time for them to begin and that delay of school enrollment until after the Soldier’s normal scheduled separation date would cause undue personal hardship.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant was within 90 days of his scheduled separation date when he was honorably discharged and that he had been accepted into an educational program, which could ultimately lead to a commission.

2.  While it is unclear why the applicant was not discharged under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-2, there is no evidence that he had any physical or mental conditions, which would have resulted in his separation under paragraph 5-17 of that regulation.

3.  The fact the applicant’s narrative reason and SPD code are consistent with an individual being separated in order to attend school, it appears that the regulatory cite on his separation document was merely a typographical error and should have reflected paragraph 5-16 and not 5-17.

BOARD VOTE:

__RVO__  ___LEM _  ___YM __  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that the regulatory authority for his 1997 separation was “AR 635-200, PARA 5-16” vice “AR 635-200, PARA 5-17.”

		Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086149	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20031125	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.