RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050005864


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas A. Pagan               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his honorable discharge be changed to a
medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has difficulties spelling and
remembering a variety of things.  He further states that he does not read
because of his difficulties concentrating.

3.  The applicant provides 8 pages of a Standard Form 513 (Medical Record
Consultation Sheet), dated 28 January 2005.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 26 June 1980.  The application submitted in this case is dated
29 March 2005.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 October 1979 and
successfully completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  He did not
successfully complete his advanced individual training (AIT) at Aberdeen
Proving Grounds, Maryland.

4.  On 28 May 1980, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to
discharge him under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program
(EDP) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).  The commander
based her recommendation on the fact that he failed AIT.  He was retested
twice to find an alternate AIT, but his scores were considered to be
incompatible for further AIT.

5.  The applicant was advised of his rights and the effect of a waiver of
those rights by his company commander.  He was also advised of the basis
for his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.  He
indicated that he did not desire to provide a statement in his own behalf
and that he voluntarily consented to the discharge.
6.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation to
administratively separate the applicant and directed he receive an
honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 5 for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  On
26 June 1980, he was separated after completing 8 months and 11 days of
creditable active service.  Item 28 (Narrative and Reason for Separation)
of his DD Form 214 shows "Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) Failure to
Maintain Acceptable Standards for Retention.

7.  On 26 June 1980, the applicant was honorably released from active duty
and transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group.

8.  The applicant's medical records are not available.

9.  The applicant submitted 8 pages of a Standard Form 513, dated 28
January 2005.  The documents show that the applicant was examined and a
diagnostic impression showed him to have cognitive disorder, depressive
disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  In pertinent part at the time, it
provided that members who completed at least 6 months but less than 36
months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who
demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards
required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of
motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or
emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential could be
discharged.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard,
nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.
No member would be discharged under that program unless he/she voluntarily
consented to the proposed discharge.

11.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) states Medical Evaluation Boards (MEBs) are convened to
document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is
affected by the Soldier's status.  A decision is made as to the Soldier's
medical qualification for retention based on the criteria in Army
Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.

12.  Chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness)
governs medical fitness standards for retention and separation including
retirement.  It lists and describes the various medical conditions and
physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military
service.  Educational disabilities are not listed in the chapter.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant contends that he should have been given a
medical discharge, there is no medical evidence of record that shows he had
any mental or medical condition prior to his discharge on 26 June 1980 that
would have rendered him eligible for physical disability processing.

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.  He had an opportunity to
submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed
to do so.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 26 June 1980, the date of the ADRB
action; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 25 June 1983.  However, the
applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not
provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__TAP_ _  _ ENA __  _  _ JRS _  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.






2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  ____ Mr. Thomas A. Pagan ___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005864                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |22 November 2005                        |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0200.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]