MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           4 April 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065525

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 request for a physical disability retirement or discharge and the deletion of the word “controlled” from item 39 of his 20 September 1967 Report of Medical History, SF 89.

APPLICANT STATES:  That if you compare his induction physical with the        separation physical, you can see that the separation physical does not pertain to him.  Each item (as to physical complaints) is marked differently.  At the time of his separation, the only thing on his mind was going home on 8 November 1967.  The word “controlled” was not in the examiner’s writing, as confirmed by his letter.  The word “controlled” is in the past tense and not in the present tense.  He requests the change in his discharge be based on his active duty medical records.  He was transferred from one work section to another because of a dispute he had with his section chief.  In his new section, he was only required to instruct 4 to 5 hours a week in a 4 ½ day work week to help with his chronic anxiety problems.  That happened about 9 months before he separated.  The last 45 days he was given even less to do.  He was not given a reenlistment talk until his 22d month when his executive officer asked him what he was going to do in civilian life and wished him good luck.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel makes no additional contention.

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 25 October 2001 (docket number AR2001058572).

The applicant underwent his induction physical on 11 August 1965.  The Report of Medical History, SF 89, dated 11 August 1965 shows his identification number as US5___1, his home address as 4___ ___ Huntington, WV, his date of birth as 12 September 1945, that his father’s and mother’s health were both in fair condition, and that he had two brothers.  He checked that he had numerous health problems.  He listed his health as “fair.”  His induction Report of Medical Examination, SF 88, shows he had no clinical abnormalities except for a ½ inch cut or scar above his right eye.  

The applicant underwent his separation physical on 20 September 1967.  The Report of Medical History, SF 89, dated 20 September 1967 shows his identification number as US5___1, his home address as 4___ ___ Huntington, WV, his date of birth as 12 September 1945, that his father’s and mother’s health were both in fair condition.  It does not show that he had brothers.  He checked that he only had frequent trouble sleeping, nervous trouble, and had bled excessively after an injury or tooth extraction.  He listed his health as “good.”  He signed the reverse of the form.  Except for the size of the check marks, the check marks on the front and the reverse of this form appear to have been made by the same hand.  
The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 20, item 38 shows that his conduct and efficiency were rated as “excellent” when he transferred from 5th ETC (acronym unknown), U. S. Army Ordnance Center and School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, U. S. Army Ordnance Center and School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD on     14 March 1966.  He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 23 June 1967.  His Installation Clearance Record, DA Form 137, for a date of separation on             8 November 1967 shows that his conduct and efficiency were rated as “excellent” at the time he separated.  Item 42 of his DA Form 20 shows that he was eligible for reenlistment.

Army Regulation 635-40 states that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “controlled” as restrained, managed, or kept within bounds (i.e., present tense).  

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 has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant has not provided convincing evidence or argument that the SF 89 dated 20 September 1967 does not pertain to him.  The personal information is almost identical, he signed the reverse and the check marks on the reverse appear to be identical to the check marks on the front.  As for completeness, the Board is cognizant of the fact that in August 1965 the applicant was being examined for induction whereas in September 1967, as the applicant himself states, he was only interested in going home.  

3.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the word “controlled” was not written by the reviewing medical officer or other authorized official.  According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the word is present tense.

4.  In any case, the applicant’s conduct and efficiency had been rated as “excellent” up through the time of his separation.  He had been promoted only five months prior to his separation.  There is no evidence to show that he was unfit to perform his military duties.  Regardless of when he was given his reenlistment talk or the substance of that talk, the applicant was eligible for reenlistment. 

5.  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.

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

__aao___  __rwa___  __kyf___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065525	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020404	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.