RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  20 February 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070015670 


	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:


Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.

Chairperson

Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast

Member

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

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, the narrative reason for his discharge be changed to medical discharge.  

2.  The applicant states that he was unable to adjust to military structure due to his mental disability; so he became an alcoholic during his military service.  He further adds that he was treated for alcoholism at the Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital. 

3.  The applicant provided the following additional documentary evidence in support of his application:

	a.  DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Service), dated 4 August 1979.

	b.  Self-authored letter, dated 19 October 2007.

	c.  Standard Form (SF) 600 (Record of Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 7 April 1979.

	d.  SF 513 (Clinical Record-Consultation Sheet), dated 7 May 1979.

	e.  DA Form 2627 [Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)], dated 23 May 1979.

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 on 22 March 1979, an application for determination of moral eligibility for enlistment in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) was submitted due to the applicant’s history of assault, jaywalking, reckless operation of a vehicle, driving without a permit, carrying a concealed weapon, intoxication, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.  His waiver was approved on 27 March 1979.  Accordingly, he enlisted in the USAR on 27 March 1979 for a period of 6 years.  

3.  The applicant's records further show that he was ordered to active duty training on 30 March 1979.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36C (Wire Systems Installer/Operator).  The highest rank he attained during his military service was private two/E-2.

4.  On 23 May 1979, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order and failing to go to his appointed place of duty on or about 22 May 1979.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $175.00 pay for two months, 21 days of extra duty, and 21 days of restriction.   

5.  On 4 August 1979, upon completion of MOS training, the applicant was honorably relieved from active duty training in accordance with paragraph 5-15 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) .  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his separation shows he completed 4 months and 5 days of creditable military service.

6.  Upon separation from active duty training, the applicant was assigned to the 812th Signal Company, Kings Mills, Ohio.  However, he failed to maintain satisfactory attendance despite numerous notifications by his unit commander.

7.  On 4 February 1981, by memorandum, the applicant’s unit commander recommended the applicant’s separation for misconduct  due to unsatisfactory participation under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures).  

8.  On 26 January 1982, Headquarters, Fifth United States Army, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, approved the applicant’s separation for misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation.  He was subsequently reduced from private/E-2 to private/E-1 on 22 March 1982 in accordance with paragraph 3-38 of Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Classification, Promotions, and Reductions).

9.  On 23 March 1982, the 83rd United States Army Reserve Command, Columbus, Ohio, published Orders 53-11, reassigning the applicant from the 812th Signal Company, Kings Mills, to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) for unsatisfactory participation.  The applicant's service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

10.  In his self-authored statement, dated 19 October 2007, the applicant stated that he had never used alcohol of any kind prior to entering the military and that during attendance of MOS training at Fort Gordon, Georgia, he was introduced to alcohol and soon became an alcoholic. He further adds that he was treated for alcoholism at a VA hospital from 1980 to 1985. However, due to lack of further medical treatment for his alcohol addiction, he became a hopeless drunk, a homeless person, and a mental health patient.  He even tried committing crimes to feed his addiction and only asks for his country’s help in assisting him with his treatment.

11.  The applicant's SF 600 shows that the applicant was treated for pain in his right little finger on 7 April 1979.  Additionally, his SF 513 shows that he caught his right hand in a door on 7 May 1979.

12.  There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he suffered from or was treated for alcohol abuse. 

13.  There is no indication in the applicant's records that shows he received a permanent profile and there is no evidence that the applicant underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB).

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  It provides for medical evaluation boards, which 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 qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501 (Standards of Physical Fitness), chapter 3.  If the MEB determines the Soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the Soldier to a PEB.

15.  Paragraph 3-2b provides for retirement or separation from active service.  This provision of regulation 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.  The regulation also states that, when a Soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that the Soldier is fit. 

16.  Paragraph 8-4 of Army Regulation 635-40 requires a commander to refer a Soldier to the responsible medical treatment facility when the unit commander believes that Soldier is unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating because of physical disability.  This provision of regulation requires that the request will be in writing and will state the commander’s reasons for believing that the soldier is unable to perform his or her duties

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show medical separation.

2.  Evidence of record shows that, upon completion of MOS training, the applicant was honorably relieved from active duty training in accordance with paragraph 5-15 of Army Regulation 635-200.  Subsequent to his relief from active duty training, the applicant sought active USAR service and was medically cleared for same.  However, he failed to maintain satisfactory attendance despite numerous notifications by his unit commander and was separated for misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation.

3.  There is no evidence in his records that indicates he was issued a permanent profile or that a medical evaluation board was convened to evaluate his medical status.  The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that he was separated for medical reasons.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant is not entitled to relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__phm___  __ecp___  __mjf___  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.




						Patrick H. McGann, Jr.
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.