RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         30 JUNE 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007710


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Melinda Darby                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |

      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, in effect, that the reason for her 2004
discharge be changed from “failure to meet procurement medical fitness
standards” to show that she was discharged as a result of complications
following unnecessary surgery which was performed while she was in the
Army.

2.  The applicant states that she is a single parent of two who entered
active duty on 26 September 2003.  She notes she had no “physical or mental
deficiencies” and no “complaints and or concerns.”  However, during “boot
camp” she “developed a hernia which required immediate surgery for repair.”


3.  She states that initially she developed stomach cramping after physical
training and was diagnosed with a pulled muscle and place on a profile for
one week.  At the end of that week she states she took and passed a
physical fitness test but then developed “extreme pain and had to been seen
again at the troop medical clinic.”  She states it was after this visit
that she was referred to the surgical clinic for “further testing and
diagnoses.”  She states she was “once again” placed on a profile until a
“hernia repair procedure could be scheduled.”  She also states that her
physician told her he suspected she was suffering from a “heart murmur” and
was referred to internal medicine where she was told the results of her
“EKG and an echocardiogram” were “interpreted to [her] as a diagnosis of
heart murmur and that [her] lung pressure was over the norm.”  The
applicant states that additional tests were requested to determine the
“severity of the murmur” but she was instructed to return to training “with
physical restrictions.”

4.  She states she underwent surgery on 14 November 2003 and that she was
told that the surgery would only last 1.5 hours and she would be released
the same day.  However, she states she woke up during surgery and
“experienced a coughing episode” and was told that her “intestines came out
and had to be replaced in the proper place.”  She states that her physician
also told her that “the surgery that was scheduled for 1.5 hours lasted 4
hours and there had been no complications.”  She states she quested the
reason for the “longevity of the procedure” but was never given a clear
answer.

5.  The applicant states that rather than being allowed to leave the
hospital the day of her surgery she was kept in the hospital for
observation and given “a self-medicating machine that delivered demoral
intravenously” because of her “extreme abdominal pain.”  She states she was
released from the hospital on
17 November 2003 and assigned to the medical holding detachment for
“recovery and observation” but continued to experience pain and discomfort.
 She states that within “one week’s time after the surgery” her stomach was
swollen and she reported to the Urgent Care Clinic where several tubes of
blood were taken to check for infection and x-rays were done and a urine
sample taken.  She was released from the Urgent Care Clinic “with no signs
of infection” and was told to make an appointment with “the operating
physician.”  He, however, was not available so she was seen by another
doctor who, after hearing her complaint asked if she would like him to
“stick a needle in and withdraw some fluids?”  She states she was not sure
if he was joking or being sarcastic, but declined and “once again endured
the amount of pain that [she] had been enduring since the surgery.”  By 22
November 2003 she states she was released on convalescent leave to go home
to Beaufort County with a refilled prescription of pain medication.  She
states that at that time she was taking “Darvocet, prenatal vitamins, and
an antacid for pain and discomfort.”

6.  The applicant states that on 19 December 2003 she returned to internal
medicine for follow up and “a CT scan” and was told the results would be
given to her “via telephone when they came in.”  She states that on 22
December 2003 she was called at home and informed that she “had been
diagnosed with pulmonary embolism” and told she needed to report to the
nearest military hospital so she could receive blood thinners.  She states
she was taken by her family to Fort Stewart and upon identifying herself
was placed in the ICU (intensive care unit) for three days and “put on
louvenox, heparin, coumadin, and oxygen” and subjected to hourly blood
checks.  She states she was released from the hospital on 26 December 2003
but advised to return to the hospital every other day for blood level
checks.

7.  She states she returned to Fort Jackson on 6 January 2004 and saw a
physician on 7 January.  She states she also spoke with a nurse and given a
class on the side effects of the coumadin medication.  She states that she
experienced severe chest and abdominal pain and was given a “CT Scan” and
informed that all the blood clots were gone but “now lymph node problems
had developed.”  She states that she was finally able to get an appointment
with a surgeon who told her that she was “just sore and would have pain for
about (1) year after the surgery.”  She states he did more tests and could
find no reason for the swelling and the pain and was told to “return to him
for the next month and then after the month’s time he released [her] from
his care.”

8.  She states that she continued to complain about numbness in her left
arm, pain in her chest, throat and the right side of her body where the
surgery was performed and was told by the internal medicine physician that
she “never had blood clots and should not have been placed on the
medication” and he commented that “no physician could re-assure [her] that
[she] was well” and that he would refer her to the “community health mental
service due to [her] constant inquiries as to why [she] was given
medication that [she] did not need.”

9.  She states that on 23 February 2004 she was seen by a
hematologist/oncologist to “perform a series of tests to see if [she] had
protein deficiency.”  However, on 7 April 2004 she was told by the internal
medicine doctor that he was transferring her “from the Army because [she]
was costing the Army too much money.”

10.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant enlisted in
the Regular Army and entered active duty on 26 September 2003.  Her
enlistment contract indicated that she was enlisting for training as a unit
supply specialist. She was 28 years old at the time and a high school
graduate.  Her enlistment document indicated that she responded “no” when
asked if she had “anyone dependent upon [her] for support.”  On a Record of
Emergency Data form, signed by the applicant on 30 September 2003, she
indicated she had two minor children.  The address listed for the children
was the applicant’s mother’s address.

2.  There were no service medical records available to the Board, or
provided by the applicant.

3.  On 13 April 2004 the applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, for failing to meet
procurement medical fitness standards.  At the time of her discharge the
applicant had 6 months and 18 days of active Federal service.  Documents
associated with the applicant’s separation processing were not available to
the Board.

4.  Paragraph 5-11, of Army Regulation 635-200, provides for the separation
of enlisted 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 enter on active duty.
 Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active
duty and will result in an entrance physical standards board.  Medical
proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a
medical condition was identified by an appropriate military medical
authority within 6 months of the Soldier’s initial entrance on active duty
and a determination made that the condition would have permanently or
temporarily disqualified the Soldier from entry into the military service
or entry on active duty had the condition been detected at that time.  The
medical condition must also not disqualify the Soldier for retention in the
military service under provisions of Chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501.  A
Soldier who is found after entry on active duty not to have been qualified
under procurement medical fitness standards at the time of enlistment may
request to be retained on active duty subject to certain conditions.

5.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary,
congenital, and other EPTS (existed prior to service) conditions frequently
become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a
disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly
documented or unless a Soldier has been permitted to continue on active
duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnosed or
should have been diagnosed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the applicant’s separation
for failing to meet procurement medical fitness standards is presumed to
have been proper and accomplished in compliance with applicable
regulations.

2.  The applicant’s separation would have been based on the fact that a pre-
existing medical condition was identified which prevented her from
completing training.  The applicant would have been involved in the
separation processing.

3.  The Army has an obligation to release individuals whose medical
conditions might further aggravate the condition and/or ultimately
jeopardize the health of the individual, if permitted to remain under the
rigors of a military environment.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MD __  ___TO __  __YM___  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.





                                  ______Melinda Darby_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007710                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050630                                |
|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.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]