APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his uncharacterized discharge be changed to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge makes his time and effort in the Army appear to be of no effect.

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

He was born on 16 March 1976.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  On 22 November 1995 he entered the Delayed Entry Program.  On 26 March 1996 he enlisted, with a medical waiver, in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic training but did not complete advanced individual training.

On 29 August 1996, Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings were initiated for a diagnosis of idiopathic scoliosis and back pain.  The Board found the applicant unfit for induction but fit for retention.  The applicant had received a waiver to enlist with a curvature of the spine of 32 degrees.  At the time of the Board the curvature was 47 degrees.  The doctor remarked that it was unlikely that the applicant’s back could have gone from 32 - 47 degrees in such a short span of time.

On 12 September 1996, the applicant concurred with the Board proceedings and requested discharge from the Army without delay.

On 12 September 1996, the applicant was counseled regarding the recommended separation action and was counseled that “Such a separation may result in a characterization of service of Uncharacterized, Honorable, General….”

On 18 September 1996, the applicant signed a memorandum acknowledging notification of his “proposed Honorable separation from….”  He did not request retention on active duty and he elected not to submit a statement or rebuttal to the Medical Approving Authority.

On an unknown date, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation, directed the soldier not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve as he had not received a military occupational specialty and that he receive an uncharacterized (Entry Level Status) discharge.

On 3 October 1996, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade of E2 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, (failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards).  He had completed 6 months and          8 days of creditable active service.  The applicant signed his DD Form 214.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty.  Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the soldier’s initial entrance of active duty that would have permanently or temporarily disqualified him or her for entry into the military service or entry on active duty had it been detected at that time and does not disqualify him or her for retention.  Unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a soldier will be awarded an uncharacterized description of service if in entry level status.

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, 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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The uncharacterized discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director