| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her records be changed to show that she was medically qualified for retention in the Army.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, she was examined by her doctor, who is
a hematologist, and the completed lab work revealed that she no longer
possesses a vitamin B12 deficiency. She states that her medical records from Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, indicate that she can reenlist when she is found fit for service.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 19 November 1996, she enlisted in the Army for 4 years, for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 62E (Heavy Construction Equipment Operator), and airborne training.
The applicant was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to attend basic combat training (BCT). A medical examination she took while in BCT revealed that she was suffering from anemia, and that this condition existed prior to service (EPTS). As a result, she was referred to an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) for evaluation.
On 6 December 1996, the EPSB met and determined that the applicant’s medical condition did not meet induction standards and it recommended that she be discharged from the Army for failing to meet procurement medical fitness standards. The applicant was informed of the EPSB findings and recommendations, and she was advised of her options in connection with the completed EPSB action.
On 12 December 1996, the applicant concurred with the EPSB findings and recommendations, and she requested to be discharged from the Army without delay. The EPSB findings were approved by the appropriate authority and on
20 December 1996, the applicant received an uncharacterized discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200, for failing to meet procurement medical fitness standards. At the time of her separation, she had completed a total of 1 month and 2 days of active military service.
The applicant’s DD Form 214 confirms that the authority for her discharge was paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200, and that the narrative reason for her separation was failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to her upon separation shows that she was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JFW and a reentry (RE) code of RE-3.
Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, 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 processing into the Regular Army and the USAR. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service personnel. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes. RE-3 applies to persons who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation but, the disqualification is waivable.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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, active duty for 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 the 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.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that she no longer suffers from the medical condition that resulted in her discharge. However, this factor even if true does not impact the validity of her discharge, which was based on her medical condition at the time.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was diagnosed as having anemia and as a result was evaluated by an EPSB. The EPSB found that her condition existed prior to her entry into the service, and it recommended that she be discharged because she did not meet medical fitness standards for enlistment or induction. The Board further notes that the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations of the EPSB, and she elected to be discharged without delay.
3. The Board finds the applicant’s separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize her rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
4. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that she no longer suffers from vitamin B12 deficiency and is now fit for military service. However, even if true this does provide evidentiary support for changing the reason for her discharge, which was valid at the time. The applicant is advised that the RE-3 code she was assigned at the time of her separation may be waived for enlistment purposes. If the applicant still desires to enlist in the Navy, it is recommended that she contact a Navy recruiter and request that they process a waiver for her enlistment in their service if she is otherwise qualified.
5. 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.
6. 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
RKS__ __JM___ __JHL _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083806 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UNCHAR |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19961220 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 191 | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130016459
IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 23 June 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130016459 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. On 28 May 2013, the separation authority...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00431
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), found unfit for the condition, determined unfit for continued military service and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. While chronic vertigo with associated ataxia was the condition for which the CI was initially placed on TDRL, further diagnostic work-up revealed that her symptoms were due to chronic B12...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012362
A medical proceeding conducted by an EPSB, 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, the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at the time of enlistment, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011179
On 27 March 2013, the separation authority directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of an uncharacterized discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 states that a Soldier is in an entry-level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080020022
Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 27 August 1996, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards. On 17 September 1996, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized separation of service. A fully honorable...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130006049
On 26 February 1999, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed the applicants discharge with service uncharacterized. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (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. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010163
Additionally, on 23 August 2001, the applicant's immediate commander notified him that she was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12(c), for misconduct commission of a serious offense. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The applicant failed to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012124
The applicant states that she should have been discharged or retired by reason of permanent disability because her pre-existing conditions were made worse by her active military service. On 24 September 2009 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-11, and her service was uncharacterized. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, serves as the authority for separation of personnel who did not...
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120022628
Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. On 15 February 2012, the separation authority directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of honorable. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided DD Form 149, dated 28 November 2012; DD Form 214 and discharge orders for service under current review; Page 2 of DA Form 4707-E...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008630
On 18 August 1995, she had two more episodes of palpitations and dizziness. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel: a. Paragraph 5-11 specifically provided 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, active duty for training, or initial entry...