RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            13 JULY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050016278


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Robert Osborn                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Moeller                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Naomi Henderson               |     |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 report of separation (NGB Form 22) be
corrected to reflect that his Narrative Reason for Separation was
“Condition not a Physical or Mental Disability.”

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly given a Narrative
Reason for Separation of “Medically Unfit for Retention” and should have
received a reason of “Condition not a Physical or Mental Disability.”  He
goes on to state that because his paperwork was lost and it included a
waiver of his medical condition, by the time it was found he was not happy
about the way he was being treated and elected to be discharged when it was
offered.  However, subsequent to his discharge, a determination was made by
a State Medical Evaluation Board (SMEB) that he was fit for duty.
Unfortunately he had already been discharged at his own request and he has
encountered difficulty in reentering the military services of his country.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a memorandum from the Massachusetts
Army National Guard (MAARNG) dated 12 September 2003, which indicates that
an SMEB found him fit for duty and a copy of a letter from the MAARNG to a
Member of Congress (MOC) informing the MOC that the applicant had been
discharged from the MAARNG as he had requested.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant initially enlisted in the United States Army Reserve
(USAR) under the delayed entry program (DEP) with a medical waiver on 24
November 1993, for a period of 8 years.  However, on 5 January 1994, he
requested to be discharged due to apathy and personal problems.  He simply
did not want to serve in the military and apologized for his actions.  His
training slot was cancelled and he was given an uncharacterized discharge
on 10 June 1994.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve and after serving 5
months and 20 days of inactive service, he was ordered to active duty for
his initial training on 16 December 1996.  He was ordered to active duty at
Parris Island, South Carolina to undergo his basic training.

3.   The facts and circumstances surrounding his separation are not present
in the available records.  However, his records contain a duly
authenticated Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form
214) which shows that the applicant received an uncharacterized entry level
separation on 11 February 1997, due to an “Erroneous Enlistment – Marine
failed to meet requisite physical standards for enlistment.  Marine was not
aware of defect and defect not detected or waived by the MEPS [Military
Entrance Processing Station].”  He had served 1 month and 25 days of active
duty.

4.  The applicant, after serving 2 months and 29 days of inactive service,
again enlisted in the Marine Corps and on 24 February 1999, he was again
ordered to active duty.  It appears that he completed his basic training
and was transferred to the Marine Corps Recruit Camp at Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina to undergo his advanced training.

5.  However, on 25 June 1999, he was again given an uncharacterized
discharge for a condition deemed not a physical or mental disability.  He
had served 4 months and 2 days of active service during this enlistment.

6.  The applicant enlisted in the MAARNG with a medical waiver on 17 March
2000, for a period of 7 years and 18 weeks under the civilian acquired
skills program as a welder/metal worker.  He was advanced to the pay grade
of E-4 on 22 November 2000.

7.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge
are not present in the available records.  However, the applicant admits
that he requested to be discharged rather than to await the results of the
SMEB and his records do contain a duly authenticated NGB Form 22 which
shows that he was honorably discharged on 7 May 2003, under the provisions
of paragraph            8-26J(1), National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200
due to being medically unfit for retention.  He had served 3 years, 1
month, and 21 days of service during his enlistment and was given a
Reenlistment Eligibility Code of RE-3.

8.  National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-26J (1), provides, in
pertinent part, that commanders who suspect that a Soldier may not be
medically qualified for retention, will direct the Soldier to report for a
complete medical examination.  Commanders who do not recommend retention
will request the Soldier’s discharge.  A Reenlistment Eligibility Code of
RE-3 will be issued in such cases.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Inasmuch as the facts and circumstances are not present in the
available records and since the applicant has admitted that he requested
that he be discharged, it must presumed in the absence of evidence to the
contrary that he agreed at the time that he was unfit for retention.

2.  Notwithstanding the decision of the SMEB, 4 months after his discharge,
that determined that he was fit for duty, the fact that he has been
determined in at least two previous enlistments to be unfit for duty, it is
reasonable to presume that there is reason to believe that such was the
case in his most recent discharge.  Accordingly, there is no basis to
change the reason for his discharge.
3.  While the Board understand the applicant’s desire to enlist and serve
his country, it appears that the applicant may not be suited for military
service given he has enlisted four times and has yet to complete any of
those enlistments, which has resulted in the Government spending funds
repeatedly that do not produce positive results.  Although he can apply for
a waiver of his RE Code to enlist in a military service, given the results
of his previous four enlistments and the lack of available evidence
surrounding his last separation, the Board will take no action in this
matter that will allow him to enlist again.

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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RO __  ___JM __  ___NH __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                  _____ Robert Osborn_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016278                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/0713                               |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20030507                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NGR 600-200, Ch 8, Para 8-26J (1)       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Medically unit for retention            |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |                                        |
|1.110.0200/191/RSN/AUTH |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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