RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 AUGUST 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050015020


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale DeBruler                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James Hastie                  |     |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, in effect, disability discharge or retirement.

2.  The applicant states she has been led to believe that the medical
problems she is experiencing now go back to her enlistment in 1978.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 3 May 1978.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
18 September 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.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted and
entered active duty on 7 March 1978.  She was 19 years old at the time of
her enlistment.

4.  A statement of medical examination and duty status notes that she was
treated on 21 April 1978 for stress fractures to both heels and
hospitalized for her injuries to heal.  Her examining physician noted the
condition was temporary and would not likely result in a claim against the
government for future medical care.

5.  On 25 April 1978 the applicant was interviewed by her commanding
officer regarding her motivation to continue basic training.  He noted that
she had been on a physical profile, missed considerable training, but did
not want to be recycled and threatened suicide if she was programmed for
recycle.  Her unit platoon sergeant noted the applicant had a poor
attitude.

6.  The applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged under
the provisions of paragraph 5-33, Army Regulation 635-200, Trainee
Discharge Program, because of her inability to adjust to the military way
of life.  The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged receipt of the
proposed separation and did not submit any statements in her own behalf.

7.  There were no service medical records in available records or provided
by the applicant.

8.  The commander’s separation recommendation was approved and on 3 May
1978 the applicant was honorably discharged.  She had completed 1 month and
27 days of active Federal service.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 states that 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.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation
of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 of the regulation provided, at that time,
for the administrative separation of individuals who had demonstrated
during the first 180 days of training that they lacked the necessary
motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become effective Soldiers.
This administrative separation procedure was known as the Trainee Discharge
Program (TDP).   Upon notification of the proposed discharge, Soldiers were
permitted to submit rebuttal statements.  They were also permitted to
request a separation medical examination.  Soldiers discharged under the
TDP received an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence available to the Board suggests that had the applicant’s
feet been permitted to heal and she be willing to be recycle there was no
reason to expect that she would not have successfully completed basic
training.  The basis for the applicant’s separation was her unwillingness
to be recycled, not her foot conditions.  The applicant has provided no
medical evidence which would contradict that conclusion.

2.  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 that requirement.


3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 May 1978; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
2 May 1981.  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

__JA____  ___DD __  ___JH  __  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.




                                  ____ James Anderholm________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050015020                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060808                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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