RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 JANUARY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004102379


      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. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol Kornhoff                |     |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, disability separation or retirement
with an honorable characterization of service.

2.  The applicant states the fact that he may have had a pre-existing
medical condition is irrelevant.  He states that his injury while at the
reception station is what led to his separation.

3.  In correspondence to his congressional representative he related that
he underwent a physical examination and was told that he met the Army’s
physical requirements, but while at the reception station he fell off the
top bunk onto his head, and was knocked unconscious.  He states he was
taken to the hospital and in spite of having a concussion and eight sutures
above his left eye, the examining physician thought he was fine and told
him to return in 4 or 5 days for a checkup.

4.  He relates that he continued to have headaches and was given
painkillers for his back and head but was eventually released to begin
training.  He notes that he was still experiencing very bad headaches and
backaches and it was affecting his performance.  He states his doctor told
him that his brain was bruised due to the concussion.  He continued to
struggle with training because of his injuries.  He states he also suffered
an ankle injury when he stepped on a grate while marching.

5.  After reporting to the medical clinic, he was told that he had back
strain and an ankle sprain and that x-rays of his spine showed scoliosis
with a “30-degree curvature of the spine and that 20 degrees was the most
that they would allow in the Army.”  He states the examining physician told
him that his condition should have been caught at the entrance station and
that he would be processed for discharge.

6.  The applicant states that when he told his mother, she recalled that a
doctor had told her that he had a mild case of scoliosis although he never
had any problems with the condition prior to entering the Army.

7.  The applicant maintains that his backaches and headaches occurred while
he was in the Army and that the Army should be responsible for his medical
care.

8.  The applicant provides a letter of explanation addressed to his
congressional representative, a statement from his family physician, a copy
of his line of duty investigation, and letters from family and friends in
support of his request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that on 29 November 2001 the
applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve.  A May 2001 radiology
report noted a history of “scoliosis and Scheuermann’s” and that the
findings of the radiology exam was positive for scoliosis but that it was
“fairly mild.”

2.  A May 2002 “Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status” notes
that on 2 January 2002, prior to the applicant actually entering active
duty for initial training, he was treated as an outpatient at Moncrief Army
Community Hospital, Fort Jackson, South Carolina for “back pain and
headaches.”  The applicant reported that he had fallen “out of bed during
the night and reported soreness.”  He was treated by medical personnel at
Fort Jackson and released without profile.  The injury was determined to
have been incurred in the line of duty.

3.  On 3 January 2002 the applicant entered active duty for the purpose of
undergoing initial entry training.

4.  A 5 March 2002 Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) notes that the
applicant had a history of increasing levels of pain as training progressed
and that the pain was located in mid back and that he was unable to sustain
any progress in training because of it.  He had pain with lifting or
physical training.  The diagnosis was severe scoliosis, and x-rays
indicated “30 degree of scoliosis.”  They concluded that the applicant’s
condition existed prior to his entry on active duty (EPTS), that the
condition was not aggravated by his service, and recommended that he be
administratively discharged for failing to meet procurement medical
standards.

5.  The applicant concurred and requested to “be discharged from the US
Army without delay.”  His records contain no other documents associated
with his administrative separation processing.

6.  On 15 March 2002 the applicant was discharged for failing to meet
procurement medical fitness standards.  His service was uncharacterized.
At the time of his separation he had 2 months and 13 days of creditable
service.

7.  Medical statements from the applicant’s family physician, dated in June
2003, indicate that he could see little difference in the applicant’s x-
rays between those taken in May 2001 and those taken in February 2002 and
that while one radiologist called his condition mild scoliosis and another
called it severe, he “simply would disagree with that.”  The physician
concluded that the applicant “has mostly myofascial symptoms” and that he
did not know if “scoliosis should be attributed to that or not….”

8.  A June 2003 MRI was normal.  Another medical document, provided by the
applicant, dated 12 June 2003 does, however, contain the notation
“scoliosis evident.”

9.  The two letters of support, submitted by the applicant, both note that
the applicant was an very active individual prior to entering the Army, but
since leaving the military has suffered from backaches and headaches.

10.  The Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition to
change the characterization of his service in January 2004.

11.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary,
congenital, and other EPTS 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 diagnoses or should have been diagnosed.

12.  Army Regulation 635-40 also provides that individuals who are unfit by
reason of physical disability neither incurred nor aggravated during any
period of service will be separated without entitlement to benefits.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, provides for the
administrative separation of soldiers who were not medically qualified
under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment
providing that the medical condition is identified by appropriate military
medical authorities within 6 months of the soldier’s initial entrance on
active duty.  The service of soldiers separated under the preceding
provisions is “uncharacterized” for those who are in an entry-level status
(within first 180 days of continuous active duty).

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-1 (Line of Duty Determination) notes that line
of duty determinations are essential for protecting the interest of both
the individual and the United States Government, where service is
interrupted by injury, disease, or death.  Line of duty investigations are
conducted essentially to arrive at a determination as to whether misconduct
or negligence was involved in the disease, injury, or death and if so, to
what degree.  The finding of in line of duty is not evidence that an
individual is entitled to disability separation or retirement but only that
the injury was not the result of misconduct or negligence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence available to the Board indicates that the applicant was
properly discharged for failing to meet procurement medical standards based
on a condition which existed prior to his entry on active duty and which
was not aggravated by his military service.

2.  The applicant was an active participant in his separation processing
and concurred with the findings and recommendation of the EPSB.  The
findings of that board noted that the applicant’s mid back pain, attributed
to his pre-existing scoliosis, was the basis for separation, and not the
earlier fall from his bed.

3.  A key factor in determining if a condition is aggravated by one’s
military service is not if the condition resurfaces while in the military
but if it is permanently aggravated by the individual’s military service.
It is noted that an examination prior to entering active duty showed the
existence of scoliosis and that his mother also recalled recognition of the
condition in the applicant as a child.  While the condition did not cause
problems prior to enduring the rigors of basic training, that is not
evidence of service aggravation.  In order for his scoliosis to be
considered service aggravated it would have had to be permanently worsened.
 The applicant has not shown that to be a fact.  While problems associated
with scoliosis may have surfaced while in training, the applicant has not
shown that his condition continued to reoccur after he was released.  In
fact his current physician has stated as much.  Hence there is no permanent
service aggravation.

4.  The line of duty finding is merely an indication that the applicant’s
misconduct or negligence was not the basis for his falling from his bunk.
It is not evidence that meant he would be entitled to disability retirement
or separation.

5.  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

___LS _ _  ___JM __  ___CK __  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.





                                  ____ _Linda Simmons______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004102379                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050111                                |
|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]