RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        29 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050018125


      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. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 the type of separation, and narrative
reason for his separation, be corrected.

2.  The applicant states that he should have been given a medical
discharge.  He also states that his performance and conduct were superb, as
evidenced by a certificate of recognition he was given and by his
decorations and medals.

3.  The applicant explains that he was diagnosed with Gillian Beret’s
Disease (assumed to be Guillain-Barre syndrome) when he was in high school.
 This condition caused a numbness which started in the bottom of his feet
and spread up to his waist.  The symptoms went away and he was told the
symptoms would never come back.

4.  When he was in basic combat training, his legs kept getting heavier and
his feet started to drag when he was on road marches and while performing
physical training.  Because of this, he could not complete the two mile run
in the prescribed time, even though he was given three or four
opportunities to pass the run portion of the Army Physical Fitness Test
(APFT).

5.  In 1991 he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, and has learned that
stress aggravates the symptoms of that condition.

6.  The applicant provides his separation document, excerpts from his
military records, and correspondence between him and a U.S. Senator, the
White House, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 13 April 1987.  The application submitted in this case is dated
13 December 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’s military records could not be located.  The information
contained in these proceedings was taken from documents provided by the
applicant, himself.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 16
September 1986 in pay grade E-1.

5.  On 5 January 1987, the applicant entered his initial active duty for
training.  On 12 March 1987, the applicant was given a certificate of
recognition from his commander in which he was commended for receiving the
maximum score on the end of cycle test.

6.  The applicant did not provide his separation packet.

7.  On 13 April 1987, the applicant was given an Entry Level Status
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a.
 His separation document shows the narrative reason for his separation as
Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct.  The awards and decorations
listed on his separation document are the Marksman Marksmanship
Qualification Badge M16 Rifle and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge
Hand Grenade.

8.  In 1982 the Department of Defense directed the various military
departments to implement a new separation program.  This program
essentially provided for the separation, in an entry level status, of new
Soldiers who are recommended for separation during their initial 180 days
of service, usually due to their inability to complete training.  These
Soldiers were given an uncharacterized discharge, unless they were being
discharged for misconduct wherein a discharge under other than honorable
conditions was warranted.  An honorable discharge was granted to personnel
in an entry level status only if their service was so outstanding as to
warrant an exception to policy by the Service Secretary concerned.  Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 provides for Entry Level Status Performance
and Conduct discharges for Army personnel.





9.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical
Disability, provides for the medical retirement and for the discharge for
physical unfitness, with severance pay, of Soldiers who incur a physical
disability in the line of duty while serving on active or inactive duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By the applicant’s own admission, he failed the run portion of the APFT
even though he was given three attempts to pass that portion of the test.

2.  The applicant has not submitted any documentation to show that he had a
medical condition while he was on active duty which would have warranted a
separation for physical unfitness.

3.  Since Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct was the appropriate
type of separation used for Soldiers who couldn’t complete the requirements
of their training, the fact that the applicant’s performance and conduct
were otherwise exemplary have no bearing on the appropriateness of the type
of separation he received and the narrative reason for his separation.

4.  As such, his discharge for Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct
was appropriate and there is no reason to change it.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 13 April 1987; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 12 April 1990.  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

____rdg _  ___pms__  ____lmd_  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.




                                  ________Paul M. Smith_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018125                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |200608/29                               |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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