APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that he be reinstated on active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he never went in front of a medical evaluation board (MEB) as his records indicate, he was never given any counsel to advise him in conjunction with his discharge, and he never indicated that he wanted a discharge.  The extent of his separation processing consisted of being told that he could not remain in the Army and being directed to sign certain documents.  

In support of his application he submits treatment records from his civilian physician who diagnosed the applicant as having mild to moderate kyphosis (abnormally increased convexity in the curvature of the thoracic spine as viewed from the side; hunchback), and right thoracic scoliosis secondary to pelvic obliquity (an appreciable lateral deviation in the normally straight vertical line of the spine occurring in the chest area caused by slanted pelvic bones).  The physician opines that the applicant’s two conditions should not restrict him in any way in his physical activities.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 July 1994 and entered into basic combat training.

On 9 August 1994 the applicant was considered by an MEB that determined he was medically disqualified due to scoliosis and kyphosis of moderate to severe severity, and that those conditions existed prior to his entry on active duty.  The applicant signed the MEB proceedings in the block which indicated that he agreed with the MEB’s findings.

On the same date, the applicant signed a request for discharge due to his physical disabilities.  In that request he stated that he had been informed and understood that he was entitled to have his case considered by a physical evaluation board (PEB), but wished to waive that right.

His request was approved and he was given an uncharacterized discharge on 23 August 1994 by reason of disability, existed prior to service, medical board.  He had a total of 1 month and 9 days of service.

Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5, provides for the voluntary discharge of soldiers who have conditions which are medically disqualifying for retention.  The disqualifying conditions must be found to have existed prior to the soldier’s entry on active duty, and must not have been aggravated by military service.  Soldiers being considered for discharge under this authority are required to be informed of their right to have a PEB consider their case.

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 agreed with the finding of the MEB that he was medically disqualified due to a condition which existed prior to his entry on active duty, he waived consideration of his case by a PEB, and he requested discharge due to that condition.  Therefore, his administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Whether the applicant physically stood in front of his MEB is immaterial.  The MEB had enough evidence of record to find the applicant medically disqualified and to determine that the condition existed prior to his entry on active duty.

3.  The applicant has not submitted any documentation which would show that he was coerced into signing his request for discharge.  Without such documentation, the Board must presume that he read and agreed with the documents that he signed.

4.  The physician’s statement provided by the applicant affirms the diagnosis of the military physicians.  The civilian physician’s opinion that the applicant’s conditions will not restrict his physical activities is noted.  However, that opinion does not overcome the findings of military physicians who determined that the applicant was medically unfit to endure the rigors of military training.

5.  In view of the preceding, 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