MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 8 October 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002068426

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Luis Almodova		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge from the Army be overturned and that he be reinstated to his position as a Warrant Officer Flight Candidate.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he feels that he was unfairly separated and without enough proof of an allergy to bee sting; that he was misdiagnosed and given an Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) status which resulted in his receiving an uncharacterized discharge and a separation code commensurate with the discharge; that he asked for an allergy test and it was denied him; that he feels that this medical mistake was unjust and clearly unnecessary; and that in his opinion, one man was able to destroy his [the applicant's] military career before it got started.

In support of his application, the applicant initially submitted a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, with an effective date of 24 September 2001; a DA Form 4707, Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings, dated 30 August 2001; a copy of a letter addressed by the applicant to a Member of Congress dated 16 January 2002; a copy of "Hymenoptera Skin Testing" results from the Allergy, Asthma & Sinus Center, dated 14 January 2002; a "Hymenoptera Skin Test Record" from the Pediatric, Adolescent & Adult Allergy Clinic, dated 15 January 2002; and a "Hymenoptera Skin Test" result from the East Tennessee Allergy, P.C., dated 15 January 2002.

The applicant followed up his application by "Faxing" an additional 56 pages of documents for consideration, among which are a Standard Form 88, Medical Record - Report of Medical Examination, and a Standard Form 93, Medical Record - Report of Medical History, both dated 21 March 2001, which were reported as enclosures to the DA Form 4707 but not submitted earlier; a Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 23 August 2001 and an undated DD Form 2807-2, Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report; a copy of a DA Form 3349, Physical Profile, dated 29 August 2001; and a copy of a Memorandum from the applicant to the Commander, 3^rd Battalion, 47^th Infantry Regiment, Subject: Separation Under AR 635-200, Chapter 11, dated 12 September 2001.

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

The applicant enlisted in the US Army’s Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program on
22 June 2001. He was discharged from the Reserve Component and entered active duty on 14 August 2001 in the rank and pay grade of Private First Class (PFC), E-3.

---

He was assigned to A Company, 3^rd Battalion, 47^th Infantry, at Fort Benning, Georgia, to undergo basic combat training. The Standard Form 600 that was completed on 23 August 2001, at the time of his diagnosis and treatment, reveals that the applicant was stung repeatedly by a species of hymenoptera. He immediately developed diffuse erythema with some urticarial lesions, dyspnea, wheezing on expiration, and chest tightness.

The applicant was diagnosed as having acute anaphylaxis secondary to bee sting. The applicant was given Benedryl and Solu-Medrol intravenously to counteract the effect of the bee venom. He was given Albuterol with sodium chloride to facilitate his breathing. The applicant was present in the medical treatment facility for in excess of two and a half hours for observation and treatment.

During the course of observation and treatment, the applicant stated to the examining physician's assistant that, in effect, he did not wish to be evaluated by Allergy [the Allergy Clinic] for possible desensitization and that he would rather be separated in accordance with Army regulations. The applicant was then instructed on the use of an Anakit and was told that EPTS processing would be initiated in the morning. He was returned to duty and given a permanent
P3 profile with instructions to avoid any exposure to ants, or stinging, biting insects - no field training, no physical training, no laying on the ground, and to avoid garbage waste disposal canisters.

An Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened on 30 August 2001. After careful consideration of all medical records, laboratory findings and medical examination reports, the board found that the service member was medically unfit for procurement in accordance with current medical fitness standards. In addition, it was the opinion of the evaluating physician that the conditions existed prior to service. The findings were approved on 6 September 2001.

The applicant reviewed the findings and the opinion of the evaluating physician and initialed the block in Item 21 of the DA Form 4707 adjacent to the statement, "I concur with these proceedings and request to be discharged from the US Army without delay." The DA Form 4707 was signed by the applicant in the appropriate space, Item 23, on 12 September 2001.

On the same date, the applicant completed and submitted a Memorandum, Subject: Separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 11, although he was not separated under this chapter of the regulation, to his unit commander. In this memorandum, he indicated that he elected not to submit a statement in his own

---

behalf with regards the discharge action, that he requested not to undergo a separation physical examination, and that he understood that he had seven days during which he could still exercise his rights. He understood that if he did nothing to exercise his rights, that they, in essence, would be automatically waived by him.

On 14 September 2001, the applicant was counseled, in writing, that he was being processed for separation under the provisions of "Chapter 5-11,
AR 635-200, EPTS" [the condition that in the opinion of the evaluating physician, had existed prior to service]. The applicant agreed to the counseling notification and made no remarks pertinent to the action. He signed the DA Form 4856, Developmental Counseling Form, which was prepared to document the counseling, on 14 September 2001.

On 12 September 2001, the applicant submitted a Memorandum to his unit commander requesting that he, "be placed on excess leave status pending discharge under the provisions of PARA-15-11, AR 635-200."

The applicant was separated in the rank and pay grade of Private First Class (PFC), E-3, under the provision of Paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, with an uncharacterized entry level discharge on 24 September 2001 for, "Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards." He was assigned a Separation Code of "JFW." On the date of his discharge, he had completed one month and eleven days net active Federal service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board on 18 February 2002. The issues that he raised with that board were essentially the same as those submitted to this Board. He added that his desire to serve the Army as a pilot was more than could be imagined; that it had taken him more than a year to go through the steps to be selected. He had come too far to give up on his life's ambitions over one physician's assistant's misdiagnosis. After carefully reviewing the application, military records and all other evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that he had been properly and equitably discharged; accordingly, his request for a change in the character and/or reason for discharge was denied.

Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 2 specifically identifies miscellaneous conditions and defects that serve as the basis for rejection of individuals for appointment, enlistment and induction. Among these defects is, "Allergic manifestations. A reliable history of a life-threatening generalized reaction with anaphylaxis to stinging insects. Reliable history of a moderate to severe reaction to common foods, spices, or food additives."

---

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that 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 or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date
completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition does not disqualify the soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the soldier is in an entry-level status.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons. This regulation indicates that "JFW" will be used as the Separation Program Designator Code when the narrative reason for an individual's discharge is, "Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards" and the authority is "AR 635-200, Chapter 5-11."

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 evidence shows that the applicant was treated for bee sting. He was treated after having shown an allergic reaction to the bee sting.

2. The available evidence shows that during observation and treatment, Army medical personnel recommended that the applicant be evaluated by the allergy clinic for possible desensitization. The applicant rejected this recommendation and stated that he would rather be separated in accordance with Army regulations.

3. The evidence of record clearly indicates that it was the applicant who requested that he be separated from the US Army without delay.

4. The Board found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by medical support personnel who attended the applicant or by members of the chain of command.

---

5. The proceedings of the Enlistment Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) revealed that the applicant had a medical condition that was disqualifying for enlistment and that it existed prior to entry on active duty. Subsequently, these findings were approved by competent medical authority.

6. The applicant agreed with these findings and the proposed action for administrative separation from the Army.

7. The Board noted that the applicant was separated with an uncharacterized discharge. This type of discharge simply means that the soldier was in an
entry-level status, i.e., in an initial probationary period of service. Any individual, who has served for less than 180 days at the time his or her commander-initiated separation action, and is not being separated for serious misconduct, will be given an uncharacterized discharge. This is not an adverse separation action and denotes only that the individual had less than 180 days on active duty.

8. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The Board is convinced that the reason for the discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.

9. 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

__jlp___ __mhm___ __jea___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068426
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20021008
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010924
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 5
DISCHARGE REASON	A29.00
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.2900
2.	145.0300
3.
4.
5.
6.