RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  
  


	BOARD DATE:	  2 October 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007018 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Ann M. Campbell

Chairperson

Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas

Member

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

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 an upgrade of her discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there is no explanation of why she was separated from the Army. 

3.  The applicant provided a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of her application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's records show that she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 22 December 1982 in the rank of private/pay grade E-1.  She was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) on 1 June 1983.  

3.  The applicant's DA Form 4707 [Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSD) Proceedings], dated 15 June 1983 shows that upon her arrival at Fort Dix, New Jersey for initial active duty for training (IADT), the applicant underwent an entrance physical examination where she was diagnosed with chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia, manifested by delusion of feeling that people were inserting thoughts into her mind and controlling her behavior, inappropriate effect, ambivalence, autism, some loosening of associations, marked deterioration in her ability to function in a work situation and social situation, insomnia, and decreased appetite.  The attending physician found the applicant unfit for induction into the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and recommended her separation under chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation). 

4.  The DA Form 4707 further shows that on 15 June 1983 the medical approving authority approved the findings of the proceedings and forwarded the proceedings to the applicant's immediate commander for necessary action.  The applicant's commander counseled the applicant on the same day, informed her of his intent to recommend separation from the Army, and advised her of her rights to legal counsel.  The applicant authenticated the form on 16 June 1983 concurring with the proceedings.  

5.  On 17 June 1983, the discharge authority ordered the applicant’s separation from the Army.  The DD Form 214 the applicant was issued at the time of her discharge confirms she was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-11 of Army Regulation 635-200 and her characterization of service was uncharacterized.  This form further confirms that she completed a total of 21 days of creditable active military service. 

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 of this regulation sets the policy for separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards.  In the version at the time, it states that members who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for initial enlistment will be separated.  Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 4 months of the members initial entrance on active duty or active duty for training under the reserve Reenlistment Program of 1963 which would have permanently disqualified the individual from for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time and does not disqualify the individual for retention in the military service under the provisions of chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501.  A member being separated under paragraph 5-11 will be awarded a character of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an entry-level of separation.

7.  Chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-200 describes the different types of characterization of service.  It states in pertinent part that an Uncharacterized Separation is an entry-level separation.  A separation will be described as an entry-level separation if processing is initiated while a member is in entry-level status, except when characterization Under Other Than Honorable Condition is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case or when The Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as Honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that she is entitled to an upgrade of her discharge.

2.  Evidence of records shows that the applicant was found medically unqualified for service.  The medical proceedings clearly established that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authorities within 4 months of the applicant's initial entry on active duty or on active duty for training.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects her military service at that time.

3.  There is no evidence in the available records nor did the applicant provide evidence to substantiate an upgrade of her discharge.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__amc___  __lmd___  __jcr___  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.



							Ann M. Campbell
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070007018
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071002
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19830621
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, Chap 5
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.