MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           16 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029814

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 the authority and reason for his discharge be changed from failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion to a physical disability discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was honorably discharged when he had a P3 Profile.  He should have been medically discharged.

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

That on 7 November 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 51A (Utilities Worker).  The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-2. 

On 29 June 1973, he was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  On 
19 June 1973, a Standard Form (SF) 513 Clinical Record (Consultation Sheet) shows that the applicant was evaluated and determined to have had asthma and asthmatic bronchitis since childhood.  On 25 June 1973, a Department of the Army Form 3349 (Medical Condition-Physical Profile Record) shows he received a T3P Profile for asthmatic bronchitis.  It stated no jumping, stooping, running, prolonged standing or marching and no strenuous activity.  The profile was temporary and he continued to be evaluated.

On 4, 7, and 26 October 1973, the applicant was counseled and informed that he would not be recommended for promotion to pay grade E-3, if he did not show improvements in his duty performance, appearance, and attitude.  He was also informed that he could be eliminated from the service through the qualitative management program if he did not show improvements in these areas.

On 26 October 1973, he was also counseled for being absent from his appointed place of duty.  On 23 November 1973, he was counseled for being out of uniform.  

On 28 November 1973, the commander notified the applicant that he was being denied promotion to pay grade E-3 and recommended for discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200, the Expeditious Discharge Program.  The commander cited the applicant’s efficiency rating and his disciplinary problems as the bases for the discharge action.  Both his conduct and efficiency ratings were unsatisfactory.  He was also notified concerning the rights available to him.

On 30 November 1973, he was counseled for his lack of preparation for a Class A uniform inspection.  On the day of the inspection his trousers were not pressed, his brass was worn improperly, or missing, his shoes were not polished and his hair had a ragged appearance.

On 30 October 1973, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, was imposed against him for being absent from his appointed place of duty on 19 October 1973.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay and restriction.

On 3 December 1973, the applicant acknowledged notification of the commander’s intent to separate him and he voluntarily consented to be discharged.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 5 December 1973, the appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge (HD).  

On 14 December 1973, the applicant was discharged with an HD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, Expeditious Discharge Program, for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 8 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.

In connection with his application, the Medical Advisor to this Board, opined (COPY ATTACHED), in essence, that the applicant’s medical records notes a history of asthma and asthmatic bronchitis dating from childhood.  On 25 June 1973, he received a T3P profile for a period of 30 days.  On 9 August 1973, an Internal Medicine evaluation shows plans for a P3 profile.  However, this was never formalized and subsequent follow-up evaluation, through October 1973, noted improvement in his condition.  There was no request for a Medical Evaluation Board by the treating physician.  Therefore, there is no reason to change his reason for discharge.

The above advisory opinion was referred to the applicant for comment or rebuttal, but he failed to respond.

Title 10, United States Code, at chapter 61, provides for disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.  However, a disqualifying medical condition existing prior to entrance into active service is not a basis to determine eligibility for a medical discharge.

The applicant's continued performance of duty raised a presumption of fitness which he has not overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness or injury concomitant with his separation.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-37 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before a board or punitive action becomes necessary.  Either an honorable or a general was awarded.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  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.

2.  The applicant was properly separated in accordance with the regulations then in effect, governing those individuals who failed to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion.  

3.  The available record contains no evidence which shows the applicant had a medical condition which rendered him medically unfit and justified physical disability processing.  Nor has he provided any medical probative evidence to support this claim.

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

__aao___  __vbc___  __le_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029814	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000516	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19731214	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  Chapter 5-37	
DISCHARGE REASON	EDP For failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion	
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A49.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.