MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 3 June 1998
         DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-11697

         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. The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr.	Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Mr.	George D. Paxson		Member
Ms.	Celia L. Adolfi		Member

         Also present, without vote, were:

Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director
Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         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, that the narrative reason for his separation be changed to one more favorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the reason for his discharge was the result of his hospitalization during basic training which prevented him from participating in the training curriculum; and that he was unaware of the reason for discharge until June 1995 when he applied for VA benefits.

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

On 2 December 1980 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 18.

On 19 January 1981 the applicant’s platoon sergeant prepared a Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Form 871-R (Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) Counseling) in which he stated that the applicant was a very slow learner and was in very poor physical condition. He also explained that he had counseled the applicant on 9, 10, and 14 December 1980, and on a day to day basis since 9 January 1980. He summarized these sessions by stating that the applicant could not do even the simplest movements in drill and ceremonies (D&C); that he was in poor physical condition; and that the results of his physical training test was 0 push-ups, 10 sit-ups, and a mile run time of 9 minutes. He concluded his summary by expressing his view that the applicant would never become a productive soldier and that he would not improve based on the minimal efforts he had put forth thus far in training.

On 20 January 1981 the applicant’s commander completed his portion of the TDP counseling form. He documented that he had counseled the applicant on 15 and 17 December 1980, and again on 10 and 20 January 1981, concerning his learning disability and lack of motivation to train. The commander stated the applicant lacked the coordination and necessary motor skills to successfully complete the rigorous physical portions of basic training; that he was extremely uncoordinated and tripped over himself while running in the rear of the P.T. formation; that he had been provided numerous hours of special counseling and reinforcement but lacked the ability to retain information; and that he fell asleep during all formal periods of instruction.

On 21 January 1981 the applicant’s senior field leader added his statement to the TDP counseling form and commented that he observed the applicant on several occasions having difficulty doing D&C movements, such as right face, left face, about face, and all marching movements. He concluded by expressing his belief that the applicant would never become a productive soldier.

On 21 January 1981 the applicant’s commander completed the TDP counseling form with his recommendation that the applicant be immediately discharged due to his poor physical condition, poor mental aptitude, and his inability to adjust to military life.

On 21 January 1981 the applicant acknowledged notification of the separation action and completed his election of rights by declining to submit a statement in his own behalf and declining a separation physical examination. On the same date the applicant’s intermediate level commander recommended the applicant be discharged; in addition, he indicated he had interviewed the applicant on
7 and 21 January 1981. In the 7 January 1981 interview the applicant had expressed a desire for an additional opportunity and stated that he had worked over the holidays on both his physical and mental requirements; however, the intermediate level commander concluded that the applicant had failed to make adequate progress since that time and lacked the aptitude to complete basic training.

On 27 January 1981 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge, under the provisions of the TDP, paragraph 5-33, AR 635-200, with an honorable discharge. Accordingly, on 30 January 1981 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 month and 29 days of active military service.

The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant at the time of discharge. This document identifies the reason for and the characterization of the discharge, and was authenticated by the applicant.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to his discharge within the 15 year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, paragraph 5-33, then in effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals under the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP). The TDP provided for the separation of soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable training standards required of enlisted personnel.

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. There is no corroborating evidence to support the applicant’s contention that his hospitalization during basic training impaired his ability to serve and was a mitigating factor in his discharge. The evidence of record shows that before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies which could lead to separation. The Board noted that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies and failed to subsequently conform to required training standards; therefore, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.

2. The applicant’s claim that he was unaware of the narrative reason for separation contained on his DD Form 214 is not supported by the evidence of record. The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), authenticated by the applicant, which identifies the narrative reason for separation as “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) Marginal or Non-Productive.” The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

3. 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.

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




                                                      Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director