APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow enlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which preclude enlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  She never had asthma and was discharged from the Army for having it.  She alleges that the military had mistaken the illness.  She feels that it was an allergic reaction to the medicine that she had taken.  She needs her reentry code changed so that she can reenlist.  She submits documentation to support her application, which includes a pulmonary function test and correspondence pertaining to her.

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

She was born on 3 March 1975.  She completed 12 years of formal education.  On 14 April 1994, she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), in pay grade E-1, for 8 years.  Her Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 44 (Category III).

On 27 May 1994, she was ordered to initial active duty for training (ADT) for approximately 19 weeks or completion of basic and military occupational specialty (MOS) training.

An Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD), dated 8 June 1994, indicated that, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examination, the board found that the applicant was medically unfit for appointment or enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and, in the opinion of the evaluating physicians, the condition(s) existed prior to service (EPTS); that the applicant had a “history of use inhaler to aid running, “borderline asthma.”  Recurrent bronchitis;” that she desired to remain in the Army; that the subjective findings were that “on arrival she had not been able to run without experiencing broncho striction, wheezing - emergency room visit, better with use inhaler;” that the diagnosis was “Reactive Airway Disease - EPTS;” that it was not permanently service aggravated; and that she did meet medical retention standards under chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501.  The EPSBD recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army for failure to meet medical procurement standards under paragraph 2-24d, Army Regulation 40-501.  The findings of the EPSBD were approved on 8 June 1994.  Her profile was shown as 311121.  That profile indicated “No assignment requiring exposure to high environmental temperature.  No assignment to isolated areas where definitive medical care is not available.  No strenuous physical activity.”

On 11 June 1994, the applicant submitted a statement that being discharged from the Army had discouraged her from what she would make of her life; that she understood why she was being released; that her health was very important to her and she didn’t want to endanger it in anyway; that she felt that the Army would have been good for her; that she enjoyed the things that she had done in the past week; that she didn’t want to be discharged but she had no choice in the matter; that she hoped that her health did get better and that she could join after the recovery of her illness; that, until then, she planned to make the best of the situation and continue on with her education; and that she had learned a lot there at basic and planned to use it towards her advantage.

On 17 June 1994, after being informed of the medical findings and her rights to an attorney, the applicant indicated that she understood that she could request to be discharged from the U.S. Army without delay or to request retention on active duty, and that, if retained, she could be involuntarily reclassified into another MOS based upon her medical condition.  She also indicated, in writing, that she concurred with the EPSBD proceedings and requested to be discharged from the U.S. Army without delay.

On 18 June 1994, the applicant’s commander indicated that he had personally counseled the applicant regarding her options; that she had elected to request separation; and that he recommended that she be separated.  Also, he indicated that the doctor stated that the applicant could not have any physical training of any type; that strenuous 
exercise resulted in hyperventilation; and that her condition prevented her from taking any “AFPTs.”  On 23 June 1994, the applicant’s separation was approved.

On 28 June 1994, the applicant was discharged under paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  She had completed 1 month and 2 days active military service.  She was assigned a reentry code of RE-3.

Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 2-24, provides, in pertinent part, that the causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are asthma, reactive airway disease, exercise-induced broncospasm, except for childhood asthma with a trustworthy history of freedom from symptoms since the 12th birthday.  Any use of prophylactic medicine since the 12th birthday is also disqualifying regardless of symptoms.

Army Regulation 635-200, at paragraph 5-11, provides for the separation of soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty (AD) or ADT for initial entry training.  Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the soldier’s initial entry on AD for Regular Army (RA), or during ADT for initial entry training for Army National Guard of the United States and USAR which would have permanently or temporarily disqualified him or her for entry into the military service or entry on AD or ADT for initial entry training had it been detected at that time, and did not disqualify him or her for retention in the military service.  As an exception, a soldier who is found after entry on AD not to have been qualified under procurement medical fitness standards at the time of enlistment may request to be retained in the Service.  No soldier has a right to be retained under this paragraph.  Soldiers not retained will be processed for separation.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that, prior to discharge or release from AD, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the USAR.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

The reentry code of RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria.  They are required to process a request for waiver under chapter 4, Army Regulation 601-210 (RA and Army Reserve Enlistment Program).  The Army enlistment standards depend upon the needs of the Army at the time of application for enlistment.  There is no inherent right by a former soldier to be enlisted in the Army.  The Army chooses its enlistees from among those best qualified to meet the Army’s requirements.  A former soldier should periodically visit his or her local recruiting station so as to keep abreast of the changing recruiting needs of the Army.

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.  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 this requirement.

2.  The evidence of record indicates that an EPSBD found the applicant had Reactive Airway Disease, which EPTS; and that, although she stated that she wanted to be retained, she indicated, in writing, that she concurred with the EPSBD 
proceedings and requested discharge without delay.  Therefore, she was discharged and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.

3.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of that disqualification which established the basis for the RE code.

4.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned RE code was and still is appropriate.

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