RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           25 March 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089357


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Luther L. Santiful            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.  |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his discharge by reason of completion of
required active service be changed to retirement by reason of physical
disability.

2.  The applicant states that his medical records show that, although he
was a candidate for a total hip arthroplasty while on active duty, he was
not considered for a medical evaluation board to determine his fitness for
duty, but was, instead, barred from reenlisting.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge From Active Duty) for the period 6 February 1992 – 24
October 2001.

4.  On 12 January 2004, the applicant was telephonically contacted by staff
of this Board and advised that his medical records were needed to complete
processing of his application.  Subsequently, the applicant provided copies
of his active duty medical records and copies of his post-service medical
records indicating that he underwent a successful right hip arthroplasty at
the Naval Medical Center – Portsmouth (Virginia) on 14 August 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years on 6 February
1992.  He enlisted for the training of choice enlistment option and
military occupational specialty (MOS) 42E (Optical Laboratory Specialist).

2.  The applicant served on continuous active duty until he was discharged
on 24 October 2001 by reason of completion of required active service.

3.  The applicant's medical records indicate that he began complaining of
right hip pain on or about 4 January 1996 and stating that the hip had been
hurting for approximately 3 years.  He was ultimately diagnosed with
degenerative joint disease (DJD).

4.  The applicant was treated with drugs and physical therapy and advised
that he might become a candidate for hip replacement in the future.  He was
given a permanent physical profile for his lower extremities on 17 April
1997 due to right hip arthritis.

5.  The applicant was given a separation physical examination on 15 October
2001.  The examination noted his DJD in his right hip and his permanent
profile; however, the examining physician found him qualified for service
and/or separation.

6.  The applicant was overweight while on active duty; at 76 inches tall,
he weighed between 262 – 270 pounds.  This is noted on two Noncommissioned
Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER) for October 2000 and October 2001 by his
failure to meet Army body weight/composition standards.  On 2 August 2000,
his chain of command referred him to medical authorities for overweight
screening.  He was found to weigh 270 pounds and to be obese.

7.  At the time of discharge, the applicant was a Sergeant (SGT/E-5) with
9 years, 8 months, and 19 days of creditable active Federal service.  His
DD Form 214 indicates that he received "half involuntary separation pay" in
the amount of $10,953.00.  The record does not reflect the reason for the
applicant's involuntary separation; however, DA Circular 635-92-1
(Separation Pay) lists failure to meet body weight/composition standards as
a reason for eligibility for half separation pay.

8.  Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability
retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform
the duties of his or her office, rank, grade or rating because of
disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

9.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention,
Retirement, or Separation, paragraph 3-1, provides that the mere presence
of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness
because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare
the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements
of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of
his or her office, rank, grade or rating.

10.  Paragraph 3-2b(1) of the regulation provides that disability
compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred
illness or injury; rather it is provided to Soldiers whose service is
interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because
of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

11.  Paragraph 3-2b(2) further provides that when a member is being
separated by reason other than physical disability, his or her continued
performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade
until he or she is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a
presumption that he or she is fit. This presumption can be overcome only by
clear and convincing evidence that he or she was unable to perform his or
her duties for a period of time or that acute grave illness or injury or
other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to
or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s military service was not interrupted by physical
disability.  Notwithstanding the presence of DJD, there is no evidence of
record, nor has the applicant provided sufficient evidence, which would
indicate that his diagnosed condition was of such severity that he was
rendered unable to reasonably perform the duties of his office, rank, grade
or rating.

2.  Competent medical authority determined that the applicant was medically
fit for separation or continuation on active duty.  Accordingly, he was
separated from active duty for reasons other than physical disability.

3.  The applicant's diagnosed medical condition was not the causative
factor in his being involuntarily discharged.  The record does not
categorically state why the applicant was prohibited from reenlistment;
however, the record clearly indicates that the applicant was obese and had
been referred to medical authorities for his obesity.  Failure to meet Army
body weight/composition standards is a reason for involuntary separation
and for receipt of half separation pay.

4.  The fact that the VA, in its discretion, authorized the applicant a
total hip arthroplasty is a prerogative exercised within the policies of
that agency.  It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Army
purposes.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lls___  ___le___  __teo___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                 Luther L. Santiful
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003089357                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040325                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |