APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, physical disability retirement. APPLICANT STATES: In November 1991 he reenlisted in the Indiana Army National Guard (INARNG) for the purpose of serving until his retirement. Even though he passed the “Over 40” Physical and the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) test he was “forced out” with an honorable discharge, without a disability pension or severance pay. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant served on active duty from 17 March 1966 to 2 June 1975. He enlisted in the INARNG on 10 June 1986 and was a member of the 438th Chemical Company. He was the Senior Mechanic/ Assistant Motor Sergeant in a Maintenance Platoon. On 6 March 1992 the applicant’s doctor submitted a statement that the applicant had been treated for a chronic recurring lumbar spine condition since 1985 and suffered from degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine. In a memorandum dated 18 March 1992, the applicant’s unit requested a medical evaluation. On 4 April 1992 the State medical officer determined that the applicant was not medically qualified for continued military service, in accordance with paragraph 3-14a(3) of AR 40-501. His discharge was directed on 31 May 1992. On 20 April 1992 the applicant requested reconsideration of his separation, which voided his separation. Subsequently, his command requested a waiver for retention purposes. The commanding officer stated that the applicant was a vital and valuable asset to the command. He noted that the applicant participated in physical training (PT) much to his discomfort, which necessitated his going to his “doctor” after drill to receive therapy for his back. The commander stated that the applicant did pass the APFT in October 1991, however, he had problems with the run and sit-up portion. On 17 June 1992, the Chief Surgeon, Army National Guard concluded that the applicant did not meet retention standards as his condition, DDD, is one of continued progression of symptoms and loss of physical capability. The applicant’s abilities were noted, and it was suggested that if his unit wished to retain him a waiver would be approved. However, he would have to be assigned a permanent profile, with numerous restrictions and assigned to a nondeployable unit. Attempts were made to find a position for the applicant in the INARNG which would meet his medical limitations. As none were available, his discharge was directed on 30 September 1992. On 30 September 1992 the applicant was honorably released from the Army National Guard, medically unfit for retention, under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501. In 1994 the applicant attempted to enlist in the INARNG. He was found not physically qualified. The Board’s medical advisor, in a comment (COPY ATTACHED), to the Board, noted that there is no record in the applicant’s medical record of treatment for back pain by a physician either while he was on active duty nor while he was in the INARNG. Additionally, there is no record of any trauma which caused the applicant’s pain. Rather, DDD is a process of aging. Whether the applicant passed his APFT or a physical is immaterial to DDD. Finally, he opined that the applicant failed to submit medical evidence that he was medically disqualified due to an incident while on duty with the National Guard, or that the National Guard aggravated a pre-existent condition. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1. It should be noted that one’s ability to pass the APFT or a physical before an impairment is detected, does not, in itself, constitute service-connection or a right to receive severance pay or medical retirement from the Army. 2. Whether or not an individual is able to pass an APFT or even a physical is immaterial to whether that individual met military retention standards. The applicant’s contention do not demonstrate error or injustice in the disposition of his case by his separation for the National Guard 3. 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 4. 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