APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be changed to a medical discharge. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was medically cleared for discharge by order of the IG and post commander. COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant’s submission, along with the official military file, sufficiently states the facts needed for an equitable review. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show: On 17 July 1952, a pre-induction physical examination noted the applicant had a deviated septum; supernumerary large toes on both feet; webbing on his left hand and defective vision. He was found qualified for general service. On 18 October 1952, he was inducted into the Army. The applicant was prevented from beginning basic training pending receipt of specially-made shoes. When a pair finally arrived, they did not fit. On 31 March 1953, the applicant received a special physical examination. In addition to his previously noted medical conditions, mild scoliosis and an absent left testicle were also diagnosed. He was found qualified for military service. On 27 April 1953, the commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 for unsuitability. On 12 May 1953, the applicant appeared before a discharge board. The board recommended, because of his medical problems with his feet and his hand, he be discharged for not possessing the required degree of adaptability for military service. They recommended he receive a general discharge. On 21 May 1953, the applicant received a separation physical. In addition to the medical conditions noted above, a small cyst and a scar on his right foot, both conditions existing prior to entry on service, were discovered. He was found qualified for military service. On 22 May 1953, he was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 for unsuitability. He had completed 5 months and 5 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. Army Regulation 615-369 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for inaptitude or unsuitability. In pertinent part, it provided for the discharge of an individual who was unsuitable for further military service because of lack of physical stamina, as applied to those who are unlikely to render effective service because of likelihood of early recurrence of incapacitating symptoms from any uncontrollable cause as a result of continued military service but who can be returned to civilian life without likelihood of such recurrence. Army Regulation 635-40 sets forth the policies, responsibilities and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability. In pertinent part, it states that disability compensation 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. According to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed before the individual entered the military service (EPTS). Some examples are: scars, absent organs, supernumerary parts, and congenital malformations. Individuals with EPTS medical conditions, which conditions are not aggravated in military service, are not eligible to be processed through the physical disability system. All of the medical conditions diagnosed during the applicant’s several physical examinations existed prior to his entry in the military service and there is no evidence to show they were aggravated by his term in the service. The document to which the applicant refers means that the IG and the post commander determined that the applicant was cleared for administrative discharge, since he had no medical reasons for discharge through the physical disability system (he had been found qualified for military service three times). On 29 January 1991, this Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable. 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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. There is no evidence in the records and he has not supplied any to show his medical conditions were aggravated by his military service. 3. In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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 Loren G. Harrell Director