APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that the narrative reason for her honorable discharge be corrected from showing that she was discharged for a medical condition which existed prior to her entry on active duty, to showing that her medically unfitting condition was incurred while she was on active duty.  In addition, she requests that her last name be corrected to her maiden name.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she had passed her entrance physical examination and was in excellent physical condition when she entered on active duty.  Since she injured her knee while on active duty, her separation documents should show that her medically disqualifying condition was service related.  As for her name, she states that she had enlisted under her married name, having just been married, but had her marriage annulled shortly thereafter.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 July 1980 and entered into basic combat training.

On 4 August 1980 the applicant reported to sick call complaining of knee pain.  She was diagnosed as having an incomplete dislocation and softening of her left knee.  Those conditions were considered to have been caused by a significant disuse (atrophy) of her leg.  She was treated conservatively, being given profile limitations, convalescent leave, medications and physical therapy.  

On 22 October 1980 the applicant was considered for separation by an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD).  The EPSBD determined that the applicant had medical conditions which existed prior to her entry on active duty which were medically disqualifying under the enlistment medical fitness standards, but were not medically disqualifying under the retention medical fitness standards.  The EPSBD recommended that the applicant be separated from the service.  The applicant concurred with those findings.

Accordingly, on 29 October 1980 the applicant was given an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-7, by reason of her failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-7, requires the discharge of soldiers who entered on active duty with a medical condition that is disqualifying under the procurement (enlistment) medical fitness standards, but not disqualifying under retention standards.  Since the rigors of initial training must be considered, procurement standards are more stringent than retention standards.

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

1.  The applicant’s medically disqualifying condition was found to have existed prior to service and not to have been disqualifying for retention.

2.  As for the applicant’s name, for historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The data/information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.

3.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, those records should not be changed.

4.  In the applicant’s case the records reflect the correct name under which military service was performed.

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