MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:             9 September 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020575

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Erin J. Olmes		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 disability retirement or separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  He states that he was told he would be “receiving a medical discharge” from the Army because he was not medically qualified for the service.  He notes that he has attempted to obtain VA benefits and needs assistance with medical insurance.  He also states that he has been told that the “RE-3 AUS” code reflected on the top of his separation document generally refers to a “medical discharge” for most services but appears to be “vague” when it relates to the Army.  In support of his request he submits three statements, which were originally used to support his commander’s administrative elimination action.  (NOTE:  The Board considered the applicant’s request on 1 September 1999 and, although they voted to deny relief, the Board, by unanimous vote, determined that the applicant’s failure to file within the statutory time limits should be excused.  Hence the applicant’s case has been reconstituted to excuse his failure to timely file.)

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

He entered active duty on 2 October 1964 at the age of 18, with 9 years of formal education and a GT Score of 89.

On 10 November 1964 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant for unsuitability.  The commander noted that while the applicant’s conduct was excellent he lacked the “stamina, general coordination and physical fitness” required to serve successfully in the military.  A mental health evaluation noted the applicant’s inaptitude was not caused by any psychiatric disease, was not disabling and that there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant discharge under the provision of the Army Regulation 635-40.

The three statements submitted by the applicant in support of his request do not indicate that he was unfit for military service as a result of a service incurred injury or illness but rather that he was “physically” unable to keep up with the rigors of military training.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights.  On 16 December 1964 the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  At the time of his separation he had completed 2 months and 15 days of active Federal service.

His separation document contains the notation “RE-3 AUS” in the upper left margin.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary, congenital, and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnoses or should have been diagnosed.

Army Regulation 635-40 also provides that individuals who are unfit by reason of physical disability neither incurred nor aggravated during any period of service will be separated without entitlement to benefits.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covered eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into both the active and Reserve components of the Army.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter included a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.  RE-3 applies to person not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. 

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 evidence of record indicates he did not have any medically unfitting disability, which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.  The statements which the applicant submitted in support of his request merely indicate the applicant did not have the “physical” stamina to adjust to the rigors of military training and not that he had incurred an injury or illness which made his “unfit” for continued service.

2.  The applicant’s RE-3 code on his separation document is correct.  In this particular case if the applicant’s was able to subsequently demonstrate that he was “physically” able to adjust to the rigors of military training he could have requested a waive in order to reenlist, provided otherwise qualified.  The “AUS” entry following the “RE-3” entry merely reflects that he inducted into the Army of the United States rather than enlisted in the Regular Army.

3.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

4.  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

___ejo__  ___inw__  ___cjp__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020575	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990909	
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.