APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her uncharacterized discharge be changed to physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES:  That DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), dated 1 May 1992, indicates her condition was “Permanently service aggravated”.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military and medical records show:

On 25 February 1992, she entered on initial active duty for training (IADT) as a member of the Army reserve.

On 28 February 1992, early in her IADT, she complained of and was treated for medical problems, which had existed prior to service (EPTS).

On 1 May 1992, DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceeding) indicated she was diagnosed as having hallux valgus deformity, right, which was EPTS.  The EPSBD also indicated “Permanently service aggravated: No” and that she did not meet medical retention standards.  The EPSBD recommended that she be separated for failure to meet medical procurement standards.

On 6 May 1992, she concurred with the EPSBD and voluntarily requested to be discharged without delay.

On 20 May 1992, she was discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, for her failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards - no disability.  Her Report of Separation indicates she had 2 months and 26 days of creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 covers the separation of personnel who do not meet procurement medical fitness standards.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The elimination proceedings were conducted in accordance with regulations then in effect.

3.  The fact that her service was uncharacterized was appropriate and in accordance with regulations then in effect.

4.  The applicant apparently failed to finish the sentence on the DA Form 4707, since it went on to say that her condition was not service aggravated.

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

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION



						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director