APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, reinstatement in the Army Reserve.  

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant submits a copy of a letter from his mother to a member of congress, in which she alleged that her son had medical problems in September 1993 after being ordered to active duty, consequently physical training was difficult, he could not pass the physical training test, and did not graduate from basic training.  He was verbally harassed by a drill sergeant.  He again failed the physical training.  She stated that her son passed everything perfectly, except physical training.  On 
3 November 1993, her son requested another test, and was scheduled for a test the next day, despite having a cold and hurting his back from moving 50 gallon drums.  He again failed the physical training test.  Another NCO stated that her son should have been recycled but that “he fell through the crack”.  Her son was told that he should have taken physical training, even while in the hospital, which of course, doesn’t make sense.  She stated that her son was a victim of the military’s mistakes.  She went on to say that her son looked forward to serving his country and going to college.  Completing basic training and advanced training would have meant $18,000 in college funds.  What happened to her son is against everything this country stands for.  

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

The applicant enlisted in the Reserve on 4 December 1992 and was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, with a reporting date of 
18 August 1993.  

On 27 October 1993 the applicant was counseled by a commissioned officer and informed that he was recommending that the applicant receive an entry level separation for failure to pass the physical training test.  That official indicates that the applicant had failed the diagnostic, phases I and II, and final physical fitness test, that he had failed the test on five separate occasions.  The applicant signed the form.

A 2 November 1993 counseling form indicates that the applicant failed the diagnostic physical training test on 
11 September 1993 and six physical training tests thereafter, and that the counseling official, his company commander, was recommending that the applicant receive an entry level separation.  The applicant signed the form. 

On 2 November 1993 a counseling form completed by a medical service corps officer indicates that the applicant was referred for entry level separation counseling for failure to meet the physical training test requirement for graduation from basic training.  That official stated that the applicant had received five additional attempts to meet the requirements after his class graduated, that the applicant understood that his medical problems during training had no effect on his inability to meet the push-up and sit-up requirements, and that the applicant understood that his training unit had provided the applicant all opportunities to succeed, but that he failed to do his part. That official concurred with the applicant receiving an entry level separation.  The counseling form was signed by the applicant on 2 November 1993.

On 3 November 1993 the applicant’s commanding officer initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for failing the physical training test.  He stated that the applicant could not meet the minimum standards required for the test, and that he displayed a lack of motivation even after having been counseled on numerous occasions and after having been given opportunities to pass the test.

The applicant stated that he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and declined that opportunity.  He waived his rights and waived consulting counsel and counsel for representation.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be separated.  On 
9 November 1993 the separation authority approved that recommendation and directed that the soldier be issued an entry level separation - uncharacterized.
The applicant was discharged on 15 November 1993.  He had 2 months and 29 days of active service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority
for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of
that regulation provides for the separation of personnel
in an entry level status for unsatisfactory performance
or conduct as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable
effort or a failure to adapt to the military
environment.  These provisions apply only to individuals
whose separation processing is started within 180 days
of entry into active duty.  An uncharacterized
separation is mandatory under this chapter.

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.  The applicant’s entry level separation was proper.  The applicant was given ample opportunity to pass the Army physical fitness test, five occasions after the graduation date of his basic training class.  He himself agreed that his medical problems had no effect on his inability to pass the tests, that he understood that his unit had done its part, but the failure to pass the tests was his fault.  The applicant’s request to be reinstated in the Army Reserve is rejected.

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.  The type of discharge directed was mandatory and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
  
3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

4.  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.

5.  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