MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            17July 2003                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003086542

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell 		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 his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he never should have been passed through basic combat training (BCT) because he was never able to run a mile, and his discharge should be upgraded because he has suffered from muscular dystrophy all his life.  In support of his application, he provides medical treatment records and doctor’s statements regarding his post service treatment.  

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

On 24 May 1979, the applicant enlisted in the USAR for six years.  In connection with this enlistment, he completed a Report of Medical History (SF 93) and underwent an enlistment physical examination.

The SF 93 on file, dated 24 May 1979, shows that the applicant certified that he was in good health.  It also shows that he responded “No” in Item 11 (have you ever had or had you now), to each of the illnesses or conditions listed.  He also responded “No” to question number 20 (have you ever had any illness or injury other than those already noted).  

The Report of Medical Examination (SF 88) on file, dated 24 May 1979, confirms that the applicant underwent a complete medical enlistment examination on that date, and he was determined to be medically qualified for enlistment by competent medical authority.  

The applicant successfully completed his initial active duty for training (IADT) on 29 March 1980.  At that time, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 39K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist), and he was returned to his USAR unit for duty.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his tenure of service in the USAR.  

The record shows that the applicant failed to attend 15 unit drills between 
1 October 1981 and 28 February 1982.  On 23 March 1982, his unit commander forwarded a letter to him by certified mail that informed him that separation action was being initiated on him.  In this letter, the unit commander advised the applicant of his rights in connection with the action, and informed him who his appointed legal counsel was.  The applicant failed to reply to this notification.  

On 3 May 1982, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a recommendation that he be separated from the USAR under the provisions of chapter 7, Army Regulation 135-178, by reason of unsatisfactory participation.  

On 8 June 1982, the applicant’s separation was approved and the separation authority directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge under the provisions of paragraph 7-45, Army Regulation 135-178.  

The applicant provides a case record from the University of Colorado Health Services Center, dated 16 August 1991, signed by a Professor of Neurology/
Co-Director, Neuromuscular Section.  This document indicates that the applicant suffered from severe chronic myopathy and necrotic changes, consistent with dystrophy.  He also provides an unsigned letter from an Instructor of Neurology, University of Colorado Hospital, dated 6 June 2002, which indicates that he has Becker’s muscular dystrophy, and had suffered from this condition all his life. 

Army Regulation 135-178 sets the policies, standards, and for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted soldiers for a variety of reasons.  Chapter 7, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of USAR members for unsatisfactory performance.  An UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separated under this provision of the regulation.  

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should have never been allowed to pass BCT because he has never been able to run a mile, and that his discharge should be upgraded because he has suffered from muscular dystrophy all his life.  However, it finds these factors do not provide an evidentiary basis to support the requested relief.  

2.  The evidence of record provides no indication that the applicant suffered from muscular dystrophy at the time of his enlistment.  This is confirmed in the SF 93 certification made by the applicant during his enlistment processing that indicated that he suffered from no medically disqualifying condition.  It is also supported by the results of his entrance physical examination, which revealed no medical condition, and in which he was medically cleared for enlistment by competent medical authority. 

3.  The earliest medical evidence provided by the applicant is dated almost 
10 years subsequent to his discharge, and the latest is less than a year old.  The Board does not question the validity of this evidence, but it finds it does not support a conclusion that his current medical condition contributed to the unsatisfactory performance that led to his discharge.  

4.  The Board also takes note of the fact that the applicant failed to raise his medical condition as an issued during his service tenure or as a mitigating factor for his non-participation in unit drills during his discharge processing.  

5.  The record also shows that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the 
time.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the process.  

6.  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.

7.  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

RKS__  __JM___  __JHL    __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086542	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1985/10/03	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 135-178	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Participation. 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.