MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:    

BOARD DATE:          1 March 2000                   
DOCKET NUMBER   AR1999034214

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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: Reconsideration of his application to correct his records by changing his separation program designator (SPD) to JFM.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the Board erred when it changed his SPD to JFW, and that JFM is appropriate for enlisted personnel as well as officers.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 24 June 1998  (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits new argument in that the he contends that the Board erred in its prior decision and submits a highlighted copy of the regulation, which he contends, shows the error.  This constitutes new evidence that requires Board review.

The applicant’s record indicates that he had a history of a left shoulder dislocation as a result of a high school football injury.  There were no findings of any residuals at the time of his entrance onto active duty.  During week four of basic training, the applicant experienced problems following a fall on the obstacle course and again a week later when working with a pugil stick.  He was placed on profile and experienced no additional complaints or problems.  An Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) was held on 21 October 1991.  It opined that the applicant did not meet the physical standards for enlistment due to a condition that exited prior to service (EPTS) for which no service aggravation was shown.  The EPSBD recommended that the servicemember be separated due to the limitations that this condition would place upon his capacity to serve.  In block 21 of the EPSBD Proceedings Sheet (DA Form 4707), it is noted that the applicant checked that he concurred with the findings and requested discharge without delay.  The applicant was discharged on 12 November 1991 under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11 with an SPD code JFT.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides guidance and policies for physical evaluation for retention, retirement and separation.  Chapter 5 provides for separation of personnel due to conditions that existed prior to enlistment, were not aggravated by the period of service and for which the individual waived evaluation by a PEB.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.  Paragraph 5-11 provides for the early separation (within the first six months) of those individuals who were not qualified under procurement medical standards, who manifested symptoms of medical problems that would have made them not qualified under procurement medical standards or who became not qualified prior to entry.  Although a soldier in such circumstance has a right to request retention, an individual has no right to be retained.  The retention or separation decision is within the cognizance of the appropriate discharge authority.  Except in certain extraordinary cases, uncharacterized entry-level separation is mandatory for all individuals who are in an entry-level status (within the first 180 of active duty) at the time separation processing is commenced.

Army Regulation 635-5-1, sets forth the policy and guidelines for the use of the separation program designators (SPD) and the regulatory authority for their use.  Table C-3, lists SPD Codes involving involuntary discharges applicable to enlisted personnel indicates, in pertinent part, that SPD code:

a.  JFM is applicable when a discharge is under AR 635-40, chapter 5, for a physical disability without entitlement to severance pay as determined by a PEB;

b.  JFT is applicable for failure to meet physical standards with the specific reason not identified, (Note: at the time of the applicant’s discharge no authority was given for the use of this code); and, 

c.  JFW is used for discharges for conditions that do not meet procurement medical fitness standards or for non-service aggravated EPTS conditions found during the first six months of service under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11.

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 original SPD code of JFT was not proper.  At the time of the applicant’s discharge this code to be used only for situations not fitting other codes or specific regulatory authority.  The Boards correction to JFW was proper.

2.  Although the applicant is correct that SPD code JFM is authorized for both officer and enlisted personnel, the applicant is still not entitled to have it used in his case.  JFM is used when a case has been referred for final disposition to the PEB.  The applicant’s case did not meet the requirements for a PEB referral.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

__GDP__  __MMD__  __JP  ___  DENY APPLICATION

	Karl F. Schneider
	Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR199903421	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20000301 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	Uncharacterized	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.