RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            5 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040003125


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughessy        |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |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 discharge be
changed to medical.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that based on a line of duty (LOD)
determination completed in October 2002, here entry-level separation (ELS)
should be changed to a medical discharge.  She states that she was
discouraged based on her inability to perform or pass the Army Physical
Fitness Test (APFT). However, the LOD determination made in October 2002
shows she was suffering from nutritional failure brought on by pneumonia
like symptoms.  She claims that when she left Fort Jackson, South Carolina,
her nutritional level was fatal.  As a result, she was hospitalized 36
hours after she returned home and remained hospitalized for eight days.

3.  In a Congressional Inquiry the applicant requested in June 2003, she
requested a change to her reentry (RE) code from RE-3 to RE-1.  In this
inquiry, she claimed that the RE-3 code she was assigned prevented her from
reenlisting in any branch of military service.  The Member of Congress
involved submitted this request to the Board in October 2003.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of her separation document (DD Form 214)
and a LOD Determination (DA Form 2173) in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that she enlisted in the United States
Army Reserve (USAR) for eight years on 7 June 2001.  On 9 January 2002, she
was ordered to active duty to attend initial active duty for training
(IADT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

2.  The applicant’s record does not contain a separation packet containing
the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge processing.
The record does contain a DD Form 214 that confirms on 14 February 2002,
the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 11, Army
Regulation 635-200, by reason of entry level performance and conduct and
that her service was “Uncharacterized”.
3.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 also confirms she completed 1 month and
6 days of active duty service.  It further shows she was assigned a
separation program designator (SPD) code of JGA and a reentry (RE) code of
3 based on the authority and reason for her discharge.  The applicant
authenticated this document with her signature on the date of her
separation, 14 February 2002.

4.  The applicant provides a DA Form 2173 that shows that on 21 January
2002, while participating in basic combat training, the applicant developed
pneumonia like symptoms and was admitted to the hospital at Fort Jackson.
On 28 October 2002, the unit commander determined the applicant’s illness
was incurred in the line of duty.

5.  On 30 June 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board, after carefully
reviewing the applicant’s military records and all other available
evidence, determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.
As a result, it voted not to change the characterization or reason for her
discharge.

6.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System
(PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply
in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to
reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.


7.  Chapter 3 of the same regulation provides guidance on presumptions of
fitness.  It states that the mere presence of 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 Soldier
reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade,
rank, or rating.  Separation by reason of disability requires processing
through the PDES.

8.  Chapter 4 of the same regulation contains guidance on processing
through the PDES, which includes the convening of a Medical Evaluation
Board (MEB) to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations
insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.  If the MEB determines
a Soldier does not meet retention standards, the case will be referred to a
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The PEB evaluates all cases of physical
disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army.  The PEB investigates
the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the
disability of Soldiers whose cases are referred to the board.  It also
evaluates the physical condition of the Soldier against the physical
requirements of the Soldier's particular office, grade, rank, or rating.
Finally, it makes findings and recommendations required by law to establish
the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because of physical
disability.

9.  Chapter 8 of the disability regulation contains the rules and policies
for disability processing of Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers on active
duty.  It states, in pertinent part, that a RC Soldier will be referred for
medical processing through the PDES when a commander or other proper
authority believes that Soldier is unable to perform the duties of his or
her office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical disability.

10.  Chapter 8 of the PDES regulation further stipulates that in order for
Soldiers of the RC to be compensated for disabilities incurred while
performing duty for
30 days or less, there must be a determination made by the PEB that the
unfitting condition was the proximate result of performing duty.  Proximate
result establishes a casual relationship between the disability and the
required military duty.

11.  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 and
processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3
of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service
applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE
codes, including RA RE codes.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for
continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

12.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (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.  It states, in
pertinent part, that the SPD code of JGA is the appropriate code to assign
to Soldiers separated under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation
635-200, by reason of entry-level performance and conduct.  The SPD/RE Code
Cross Reference Table included in the regulation establishes RE-3 as the
proper code to assign members separated with this SPD code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that she should have been separated for medical
reasons based on the outcome of a LOD determination, and the supporting
documents she provided were carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record provides no indication that the applicant
suffered from a medically disqualifying condition that would have supported
her processing through the Army PDES at the time of his separation from
active duty.  The record does show she was treated for an illness incurred
in the LOD.  However, there is no medical evidence that suggests this
condition rendered her permanently unfit to perform her military duties, or
that it supported her disability processing through the Army PDES.

3.  The applicant’s record further confirms she was separated under the
provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of entry-level
performance and conduct.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is presumed
that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s
rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Based the
authority and reason for the applicant’s separation, she was appropriately
assigned an SPD code of JGA and corresponding RE code of 3 in accordance
with the applicable regulations.

4.  The applicant is advised that although RE-3 code she was assigned was
and still is applicable and no change is contemplated, this code applies to
persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous
service at the time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable.
Therefore, if she desires to reenlist, she should contact a local recruiter
to determine her eligibility. Those individuals can best advise a former
service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to
process waivers of RE codes.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MDM   __TEO __  ___JRM _  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.




            ____Mark D. Manning_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040003125                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/04/05                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHAR                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2002. /02/14                            |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C11                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ELS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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