RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            28 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040008517


      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. Lisa O. Guion                 |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |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 his Entry Level Status (ELS)
performance and conduct discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he injured his back in basic
training and the Army’s investigation of this incident was of poor quality
and did not uncover the truth regarding his injury.  He further claims that
the civilian doctors and witnesses to the incident he provided were never
contacted during this investigation.  He also states that his
rehabilitation request was denied and destroyed by his sergeant.  He also
claims he did not receive counseling or rehabilitation prior to his
discharge.  The applicant also indicates he was told he would receive an
ELS discharge, but only discovered it was based on performance and conduct
on the day of his separation.  He further states, in his self-authored
statement, that he was denied a line of duty (LOD) investigation and proper
medical care.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
request:  three letters of support from his father, a letter of support
from his mother, two self-authored letters to a Congressman, the
Congressman’s reply letter, Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)
documents extracts and post service medical treatment records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Army and entered
active duty on 12 November 2003.

2.  The applicant’s record contains an Emergency Care and Treatment Record,
dated 14 November 2003.  This document shows he was treated for back pain
at General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital (GLWAHC) on 14 November
2003.  It also indicates he initially incurred the back pain in September
2003, prior to entering service, after he was punched in the back, and that
the pain lasted for five days.   He was prescribed Motrin, Flexeril, and
Percocet for his pain and given discharge instructions.
4.  On 15 November 2003, the applicant was again treated for back spasms.
The Chronological Record of Medical (Standard Form 600) prepared on that
day shows he was having recurrent back pain that started in mid September
2003, prior to his entering military service.

5.  On 16 November 2003, the applicant was seen at the GLCAHC for recurrent
back pain that increased with activity.  His treatment included continuing
the medication he had already been prescribed and to follow-up with
physical therapy.

6.  The applicant's records also contain a Standard Form 600 (Physical
Therapy, CTMC, Patient Questionnaire) that he completed while undergoing
physical therapy.  In this questionnaire, the applicant provides the first
indication that his back injury was related to a specific duffle bag
incident that occurred on his second day in the Army.  There is no further
explanation of the incident on this form.  The applicant also answered no
to the question “did you have a past history of pain or problem similar to
the one you are seeing us for today”.

7.  On 24 November 2003, the applicant was counseled on three separate
occasions by his platoon sergeant, operations sergeant, and company
commander.  During these counseling sessions, he was notified that he was
being recommended for discharge under the provisions chapter 11,
Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of performance and conduct.  He was also
informed that the reasons for the separation action were his inability to
meet the acceptable standards of conduct for a Soldier, his consistent
profile since entering the unit, his different explanation of the different
reasons for injury and/or problem, his expressed desire not to train, and
his poor personal appearance.  The applicant authenticated each counseling
statement by placing his initials in the "I agree with the information
above" block and with his signature in the "Session Closing" portion of
each counseling form.

8.  The applicant elected not to undergo a medical examination prior to
separation on 24 November 2003.  On this same date, his medical records
were reviewed under the provisions of AR 40-501 and it was determined that
a medical examination was not required for his separation.
9.  On 25 November 2003, the unit commander initiated action to separate
the applicant for ELS performance and counseling failure.  The applicant
acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action, and indicated that
if his separation were approved, he would receive an ELS separation.  He
was also afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, but he
declined the opportunity.

10.  On 26 November 2003, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, and
directed the applicant receive an uncharacterized ELS separation.  On
2 December 2003, the applicant was separated accordingly.

11.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the
date of his separation, 2 December 2003, confirms he 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”.
It also verifies that he completed a total of 21 days of active duty
service.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature.

12.  The applicant provides supporting letters from both of his parents.
These letters corroborate the applicant’s claim that his health was
perfectly normal prior to his entrance on active duty, and that they
believe their son was injured on active duty.  They both restate the events
told to them by their son and express their desire for him to receive a
medical discharge.

13.  The applicant also provides medical treatment records from civilian
doctors that document his post service care for the back injury in
question.  They all state the applicant received a back injury during
military service.  They further show he was treated for low back pain that
radiated down to his right leg.  A River Region Rehab Letter, dated 16
December 2003, indicates the applicant was injured while participating in
an overhead press of a filled 100lb duffle bag on his second day of active
duty.

14.  There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant ever
requested an upgrade of his discharge, or change to the reason for
separation, from the
Army Discharge Review Board.
15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-9 contains guidance on ELS
separations.  It states, in pertinent part, that a separation will be
described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if at the time
separation action is initiated, the Soldier has less than 180 days of
continuous active duty service.

16.  Chapter 11 of the separations regulation provides for the separation
of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in
an ELS.  An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to
Soldiers separating under this chapter.  A general discharge is not
authorized under ELS conditions, and an HD is rarely ever granted.  An HD
may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual
circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of
duty.

17.  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.


18.  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).

19.  The disability regulation further stipulates that 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that he should have been separated for
medical reasons because he sustained the back injury in question while on
active duty, and because the Army’s investigation of the incident was of a
poor qualify, and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully
considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claims.


2.  The military medical treatment records on file confirm the applicant
was treated for low back pain on 14, 15, and 16 November 2003.  The
treatment records indicate that during these treatment sessions, it was
established that he first incurred the back injury September 2003, prior to
his entry into military service, when he was punched in the back.

3.  On 16 November 2003, his treatment included a referral to physical
therapy.  During his processing for the physical therapy appointment, he
completed a questionnaire which contains the first indication that he
incurred the back injury the second day he was in the Army as a result of a
duffle bag incident.  In this questionnaire, he also makes the statement he
had never previously suffered from the condition for which he was receiving
therapy, which directly contradicts the statements he made, indicating he
incurred a back injury prior to entering military service, during his prior
medical treatment sessions.

4.  The medical records also show that the applicant’s back injury did not
medically disqualify him from further service, and did not support his
separation processing through medical channels (PDES).  This is evidenced
by the fact that during the separation process, after the applicant elected
not to take a separation physical examination, his medical records were
reviewed by proper medical authorities.  This review resulted in a
determination that the applicant suffered from no medical condition that
necessitated a separation physical examination.  As a result, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the applicant a medical
discharge at this time.

5.  The applicant’s separation processing for an ELS separation, by reason
of performance and conduct, was accomplished in accordance with the
applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met,
and the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation
process.

6.  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

___WDP   ___LCB _  ___JBG__  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.




            ____William D. Powers ___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040008517                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |NA                                      |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/07/28                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHARACTERIZED                         |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2003/12/02                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Entry Level Performance and Conduct     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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