| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to change his reentry code on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) so that he can reenlist.
2. The applicant states that he was wrongfully discharged. He does not have flat feet. At the time he was having an allergic reaction from medication that gave him the flu. He states that after taking the medication, he started getting pain and swelling in his feet. He went on sick call and a physician's assistant (PA) told him he had flat feet; however, he informed the PA that he had never had problems with his feet. He continued to have pain in his feet and could hardly walk. He also had a rash and a fever. He again saw the PA, who told him that he was going to be discharged because of an EPTS (existed prior to service) condition. He argued to no avail. Again examined, he was informed that he was having a bad allergic reaction. He went to see the PA who informed him, in effect, that his discharge for an EPTS condition would be cancelled; however, an officer examined him and informed him that he had flat feet and could not be in the infantry, that he could not get his specialty changed, and that he would be discharged. He tried to fight his discharge, but no one would listen to him. After his discharge, he had a physical examination at a Military Entrance Processing Station and passed it. He was seen by an orthopedic doctor who informed him that he did not have flat feet. Documentation from a VA hospital indicates that his feet are fine. His own doctor stated that there was nothing wrong with his feet.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, an 18 September 2001 medical record, a copy of a 12 September 2001 treatment record, a copy of a 26 October 2001 statement from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), a copy of 26 October 2001 VA medical record, and a 13 March 2002 statement from a podiatrist.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2002068758, on 2 July 2002.
2. Other than the 13 March 2002 statement from the podiatrist in East Patchogue, New York, the evidence that the applicant submits was available for review by the 2 July 2002 Board. That podiatrist stated that an examination and x-rays were consistent with flexible pes planus, mild hallux abducto valgus (bunion) and splay foot (wide foot on weight bearing). Neurovascular status was intact. Range of motion, strength testing and gait maneuvers did not elicit any detectable symptoms. The doctor stated that the applicant was asymptomatic and should remain so given good fitting foot gear. He should be able to participate in all Army military duties/activities.
3. Also, on 23 July 2003 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. In so doing, that Board noted, that if the applicant desired to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist. The board stated that those individuals could best advise him as to the needs of the Army and were required to process waivers of reentry codes.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned statement from the podiatrist in New York, competent medical personnel determined in October 2001 that he did not meet procurement medical fitness standards and should be discharged because of his EPTS condition. The applicant himself agreed.
2. Consequently, as indicated in the previous Board case, the applicant was discharged because of his EPTS condition. The discharge was warranted and his DD Form 214 annotated with a reentry code of "3" in accordance with the provisions of the governing regulation. That Board clearly stated, as did the 23 July 2003 ADRB, that the applicant's reentry code was waivable. Should the applicant desire to reenlist, as he states, then the advice offered by the ADRB is relevant.
3. The applicant's reentry code is correct. He has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JNS __ __MMB__ __PHM__ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
| CASE ID | AR2003093891 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040311 |
| 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. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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.
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2005-001
On December 19, 2002, the applicant’s podiatrist reported that the surgeries had been successful and that the applicant was “stable and fixed.” He stated that it was “difficult to tell if [the applicant’s foot problem was] a natural progression or if being on his feet for prolonged periods of time [as a cook for the Coast Guard] aggravated the pre-existing condition and allowed the bunions to get worse, causing pain and the necessity for surgery.” On February 6, 2003, a hand specialist...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019688
The examining physician indicated the applicant was qualified for service with a physical profile of "211221." His service record contains an unsigned DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 7 July 1981, which shows he was placed on a temporary physical profile for sciatica and pes planus [flat feet]. The applicant's service record shows the following: * he entered active duty with a substandard PULHES * he experienced medical problems during OSUT * he underwent an EPSBD which recommended...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01358
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01358 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her uncharacterized separation be changed to an honorable separation. The podiatrist told her that she had a pulled tendon in the arch of her left foot and that the alignment was off in both her legs and feet. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04008
Her narrative reason for separation [Fraudulent Entry into Military Service] and the corresponding separation code of JDA be changed. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Her discharge for fraudulent reasons is unfair. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02293
Foot Condition . It documented hallux valgus and pes cavus (claw foot, congenital) deformitiesof both feet and full ROM of the right ankle and hindfoot.That note itself did not reference trauma, but a follow-up orthopedic entry provided a history of injury to the right foot only. The podiatry addendum 8 months prior to separation documented pain rated “6/10 progressing to 9/10 on his right foot;” with no rest pain of the left foot, but 5/10 pain with activity.
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 | CY2010 | 20100026151
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. On 24 May 1995, he enlisted in the Regular Army as a food service specialist for a period of 3 years and assignment to Europe. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the evaluation and the rating rendered by the PEB was incorrect or that he should have received a higher disability rating...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01388
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01388 INDEX CODE 108.01 108.02 108.10 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1968 discharge for physical disability, existed prior to service (EPTS), be changed to a medical retirement. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05214
During a medical appointment on 1 April 2011, his PCM referred him to physical therapy for his knee, again; he was not issued a profile for running. The new PCM stated that he should not have been running or testing if he had gout in his foot. He had not requested the removal of the January 2011 FA due to lack of medical documentation.