MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF    

	BOARD DATE:           29 July l999           
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022354

	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	
	Mr. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Charles H. Loundermon		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell 		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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, to change the reason and characterization of his discharge in items 23 (Type of Separation) and 24 (Character of Service) on his DD Form 2l4 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from discharge/uncharacterized to a “specific type” of discharge such as honorable, under honorable conditions, or medical.  

APPLICANT STATES:  There is no specific type of discharge annotated in items 23 and 24 of his DD Form 2l4.  He provides a copy of this document issued to him on 1 February l990.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 October l989 for 5 years for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 62E (Heavy Construction Equipment Operator).  He was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for his training.

On l7 January 1990, he underwent a medical examination and was diagnosed with asthma, which existed prior to entry on active duty (EPTS).  The notation was made that he had increased symptoms during training.

On the same date an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) was held.  The diagnosis was Bronchial Asthma, EPTS.  The board recommended that under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 2-24d, that he should be discharged for a history of asthma after age 12 and confirmatory pulmonary function studies.  He was immediately put on a medical profile which precluded mandatory strenuous physical activity.  The results of the board were approved on 23 January l990.

On 26 January l990, the applicant concurred with the board results and requested an immediate discharge.  His request was approved on 29 January l990.

On 1 February l990, the applicant was discharged from active duty (item 23 of the DD Form 2l4) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 
5-11, by reason of not meeting medical procurement fitness standards-no disability.  His characterization of service (item 24 of the DD Form 2l4) was uncharacterized.  He was credited with 3 months and 19 days active service.  

Army Regulation 635-200, defines discharge as a complete severance from all military status gained by an enlistment.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that soldiers who are not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards (Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 2, when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated.  A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time.  The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the soldier is in an entry level status.  Army regulation state that a soldier is in an entry level status if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.

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.  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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant enlisted in October l989 with a medical condition which, if known, would have precluded his enlistment under Army medical procurement standards.

3.  The applicant’s medical condition was affecting his ability to perform his duties and discharge action was recommended by an EPSBD.  The applicant concurred with this recommendation and requested discharge.  Therefore, the nature of his release from active duty in item 23 of his DD Form 2l4 properly reads discharge.

4.  Further, since he had less than l80 days active service at the time the discharge action was initiated, his service was properly designated as uncharacterized in item 24 of his DD Form 2l4.

5.  In the absence of any other evidence of error or injustice, the Board finds that the applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

6.  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

__SLP___  __CHL__  _CLG___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022354	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990729	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19900201	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 5	
DISCHARGE REASON	A28.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.	A01.13	
3.	A92.17	
4.	A93.21	
5.		
6.