| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. John H. Kern | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his reentry code (RE) code of RE-3 be changed to a more favorable RE code.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he does not have flat feet and this medical condition did not exist prior to his entrance into the Army. In support of his application, he submits a letter, dated 25 April 2001, pertaining to a medical evaluation of his feet and his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 June 2000, the applicant entered the Army for 3 years. He completed basic combat training and was assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia for advanced individual training (AIT). In AIT he was diagnosed as having fasciitis secondary to pes planus, which resulted in his being referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).
On 3 October 2000, the applicant submitted a request for separation and waiver of evaluation by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). In this request, he requested discharge based on the findings and recommendation of an MEB, who had determined he was unfit for further military service due to a medical condition that had existed prior to service (EPTS). He also confirmed that he had been fully informed and understood that he was entitled to consideration of his case by a PEB but he elected not to exercise that right. On 8 November 2000, the MEB findings and recommendation was approved by the appropriate medical authority and on 9 November 2000, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.
On 22 November 2000, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for separation and directed that he be discharged under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-40 by reason of EPTS disability. In this approval, it was directed that the applicant receive an uncharacterized discharge based on his being in an entry level status (ELS). On 30 November 2000, he was discharged accordingly and issued a DD Form 214. This document confirms that he had completed a total of 5 months and 16 days of active military service at the time and shows that he was assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of KFN and RE-3 code based on the authority and reason for his discharge.
The applicant provides a letter, dated 25 April 2001, that contains the results of a clinical medical evaluation done on his feet by a civilian physician on 11 January 2001. This letter indicates that both of the applicant’s feet were evaluated and he had no problems and experienced no pain or discomfort in his feet at that time.
Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5, provides for the separation of soldiers who do not meet medical fitness standards for retention and separation for conditions that EPTS and which are identified within 6 months of their entry on active duty. A soldier is entitled to request evaluation by a PEB or separation under these provision and an uncharacterized discharge is mandated for soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation who are in an entry level status (ELS). The regulation defines ELS as an initial probationary period of service and indicates that any individual who has served for less than 180 days at the time separation action is initiated, and is not being separated for serious misconduct, will be considered in an ELS and given an uncharacterized discharge.
Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The SPD code of KFN was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-40, chapter 5, based on a disability that EPTS. Additionally, Table
2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes RE-3 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.
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. The record confirms that the applicant voluntarily requested separation based on the MEB findings and that this request was approved by the appropriate authority. He was separated with an uncharacterized discharge based on his being in an ELS and was assigned an RE-3 code in accordance with the applicable regulations.
2. Further, the applicant acknowledged that his medical condition EPTS in his written concurrence with the MEB findings and in the separation request he submitted, in which he also waived his right to consideration by a PEB.
3. The Board does not find the civilian medical evaluation provided by the applicant supports his claim that he did not have flat fleet prior to his enlistment.
4. In view of the circumstances in this case, the Board concludes that the applicant was appropriately assigned a RE-3 code based on the authority and reason for his discharge.
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
___JHK__ __TL____ __PM___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057698 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/08/23 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)/ |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.03 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021051
The applicant requests the reason and authority for his release from active duty be corrected. The SPD KFN, as corrected by the DD Form 215, specified the narrative reason for discharge as "Physical disability prior to entry on active duty - Medical Board" and the authority for discharge under this SPD was Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), chapter 5, then it effect, stated an enlisted Soldier may be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002681
On 10 May 1996, he requested discharge for physical disability. His service medical records are not available. The applicant requests that his RE code 4 be changed to 1 or 2 so he may be allowed to enlist in the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018526
The applicant states that he was discharged from the Army in 2000 with an RE Code of "3" and he desires to rejoin the service. However, there are procedures whereby the applicant can apply to a local recruiter for a waiver of his RE Code if he is in fact physically qualified and the needs of the Army at the time justify his return to service. _________XXX_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028377
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100028377 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100028377 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089403C070403
On 15 August 2002, the applicant requested discharge based on the findings and recommendations of the MEB. The separation document issued to the applicant on the date of her discharge, 20 September 2002, confirms that she was discharged under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of disability, EPTS, medical board. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was diagnosed with a seizure disorder and that her condition was determined to have existed prior to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009736
b. her initial "Report of Medical Examination" completed on 23 April 1997 shows she did not have any problems with her lower extremities and her feet were determined to have a normal arch. She was sent to the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for shin splints and flat feet. There is insufficient evidence to show the applicant's PEB findings were incorrect, that the applicant's shin splints did not exist prior to her service in the Army, that her leg condition was permanently aggravated by her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068758C070402
The letter from the DVA is dated 26 October 2001, 4 days prior to his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 serves as the authority for enlisted separations and discharges. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5; therefore; he was properly issued an RE Code of “3” in accordance with the applicable regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021442
The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Congressional correspondence * A Medical Board Summary, dated 22 October 2001 * DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings), dated 5 November 2001 * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 3 December 2001 * DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 20 November 2001 * DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 19 November 2001 * DD Form 2697...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000440
The applicant provides the following documents in support of this application which were previously seen by the board: a. a copy of his Report of Medical History dated 10 August 1981, b. multiple pages of Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) from February through April 1982, c. a copy of his medical evaluation board (MEB), dated 30 April 1982, CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence of record shows that the applicant started seeking treatment for his feet within...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062946C070421
COUNSEL CONTENDS : That although the applicant concurred with the findings of the physical evaluation board (PEB), it was not an informed concurrence. On 24 October 2000, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for duty by reason of chronic bilateral plantar fasciitis due to bilateral pes planovalgus (diagnoses one and two) rated as moderate in accordance with U. S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) Policy/Guidance Memorandum #12, Analogous Ratings, dated 6 December 1999 under...