RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           18 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040010830


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |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 that his discharge from the U. S. Army Reserve
(USAR) be voided, that he be reinstated in the Individual Ready Reserve
(IRR) with no break in service and all benefits and entitlements, duties,
and responsibilities required by that position restored immediately and
with a view to any future beneficial actions that may occur (e.g. receiving
a direct commission).

2.  The applicant states he was discharged only because of a host of
clerical   and administrative errors committed by the U. S. Army Human
Resources Command  – St. Louis (USAHRC - STL).  He was activated on orders
dated      24 March 2004.  At that time, he had been experiencing pain and
motion problems with his left ankle, residuals from a prior active duty
injury while on combat duty in Kosovo in 1999.  He called USAHRC – STL
seeking guidance and was sent a pre-printed letter to request a delay.  He
was instructed to fax in the pre-printed form, signed, and USAHRC – STL
would decide the proper course of action.  He complied with the
instructions and sent in the evidence he had (civilian record of treatment)
as instructed.  At the time, he believed he would be given a delay until he
had either finished treatment or found a diagnosis or evidence of any
permanent damage in his lower extremities.

3.  The applicant called the Delay and Exemption Board several times
between  6 and 25 April 2004.  He never received a call back, or a letter,
offering any instructions or updates.  On 24 April 2004, he flew to Fort
Benning, GA per his mobilization orders.  He spent 34 days on active duty
at the Replacement Center. He was cleared for deployment.  He completed all
the follow-on infantry training.  His ankle felt good and he never
experienced any problems.  He received an assignment to Kabul, Afghanistan.
 He was 5 days away from stepping on an aircraft when USAHRC - STL told the
Replacement Center he was not physically able to go on the mission and he
"was not supposed to be there."

4.  The applicant states apparently USAHRC – STL sent the administrative
delay to his home of record while he was already at Fort Benning.  If
USAHRC –STL grants a delay in mobilization but does not notify the Soldier,
in essence the delay has NOT BEEN (emphasis in the original) granted.
According to   USAHRC – STL, a surgeon or other medical personnel granted
the delay or exemption for medical reasons, even though the applicant had
never been examined by any military personnel.

5.  The applicant states USAHRC – STL issued a memorandum notifying him
he was being discharged.  The stated reason for discharge was due to
medical inability to report to active duty as judged by medical personnel
at USAHRC – STL.  That was an error.  While a doctor in St. Louis was
determining he should be discharged because he was unable to perform his
duties, he was at Fort Benning, GA performing his infantryman duties.  He
requested the delay be withdrawn, as it was invalid.  The questions
[concerning his condition] had been answered by his performing his military
duties.

6.  The applicant states that, remarkably, while one part of USAHRC – STL
was sending a memorandum to his home on 13 May 2004 saying he was to be
discharged, another part sent a memorandum on 19 May 2004 saying he was to
report to Fort Benning on 23 May 2004.  By that time he had already
completed a month of training at Fort Benning, GA.  He received orders in
May 2004 stating he was released from active duty not by reason of physical
disability and returned to the IRR.  In August 2004, he received orders
discharging him from the USAR.

7.  The applicant states his situation has wronged him on many levels.
First, after completing his mobilization period he became an active duty
Soldier; therefore, it was not possible to proceed with a Delay and
Exemption for mobilization.  If there was some type of medical condition,
then the Army was responsible for treatment.  Part of the communication
problem was due to being called up with no clarification of mission or even
where he was going or what he was doing.

8.  The applicant states much of this would not have happened if, in 1999,
he was not discharged without further attention given to the ankle he had
injured.  That being said, he was sent home in 2004 with no medical
referral.  If he was being discharged for medical reasons, the Army was
blatantly shirking its responsibilities.

9.  The applicant provides his 1999 separation from active duty orders; his
mobilization orders dated 24 March 2004 with an amendment dated 22 April
2004 and an amendment dated 19 May 2004; a preprinted application for
exemption from involuntary active duty; a USAHRC – STL memorandum dated 20
April 2004; a USAHRC – STL memorandum dated 13 May 2004; a USAHRC
memorandum dated 21 May 2004; release from active duty orders dated 14 May
2004; discharge orders dated 13 August 2004; an Oath of Extension of
Enlistment or Reenlistment dated 30 January 2003; and an enlistment
contract dated 26 January 2004 with a DA Form 5500-R (Body Fat Content
Worksheet) dated 26 January 2004.

10.  The applicant also provides a leave and earnings statement for the
period    1 June 2004; two separation leave records dated 21 May 2004 and
24 May 2004; an SGLV 828 (Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Election and
Certificate); a DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report); two DD Forms 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the periods
ending 1 October 1999 and 27 May 2004; an Enlisted Record Brief; and a
deployment packet.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1995.  He was
released from active duty on 1 October 1999 and transferred to the IRR.  On
     26 January 2004, he reenlisted in the USAR for 6 years.  Included with
the enlistment contract was a DA Form 5500-R dated 26 January 2004 showing
he was 75 inches tall, weighed 277 pounds, and met his maximum allowable
body fat (24 percent) at 22.95 percent.

2.  Orders dated 24 March 2004 relieved the applicant from the IRR and
ordered him to report for a period of active duty not to exceed 25 days for
mobilization processing.  If, upon reporting for active duty, he was found
to satisfy medical deployment standards, then he was further ordered to
active duty for a period not to exceed 545 days.  He was to report to Fort
Benning, GA no earlier than         22 April 2004.

3.  On 29 March 2004, the applicant signed a pre-printed application for an
IRR exemption from involuntary active duty/request for discharge.  The form
listed his reason for requesting the exemption as extreme personal
hardship.  The form indicated he understood the Department of the Army
determines whether he is granted an exemption and that, based on his status
and the merits of his case, he could be discharged from the USAR;
transferred to the USAR Control Group (Standby) until such time as the
reason for exemption no longer existed; or granted a delay in lieu of
exemption from entry on involuntary active duty.  He agreed and consented
to the above conditions if his request for exemption was approved.

4.  The Delay and Exemption Board Team provided a 29 March 2004 letter from
the applicant that apparently was part of his request for exemption from
involuntary active duty/request for discharge.  In that letter, the
applicant informed USAHRC –STL his 26 January 2004 reenlistment contained
false information that made the enlistment invalid.  He stated the
accompanying DA Form 5500-R incorrectly showed his abdominal measurement as
40.50.  The correct measurement of his abdomen should have been 47.50 so,
in actuality, his body fat measurement was about 31.46 percent.  He stated
it was not possible to infer that between the dates of 26 January and 29
March 2004 he would have gained only 2 pounds but added 7 inches to his
waist and nearly 9 percent in body fat.  Therefore, had the correct
information been entered on the DA Form 5500-R on 26 January 2004 he would
have been found to not meet the standards and his enlistment in the IRR
would have expired on 31 January 2004.
5.  The applicant further stated that, given the events and errors that
took place, the 26 January 2004 enlistment contract could be concluded to
be invalid as he clearly did not meet the height and weight criteria for
reenlistment.  He stated a Soldier in his physical state, being about 70
pounds over the allowable limit and having a body fat percentage
approaching 8 percent over the limit, was not able to properly function as
a Soldier.  He requested the Army discharge him from the Army and release
him from all further service obligations immediately.  He stated any action
other than granting a full, swift release and discharge would not uphold
the integrity of the Armed Forces.

6.  By memorandum dated 20 April 2004 and addressed to his home address,
USAHRC – STL notified the applicant his request for exemption from active
duty had not been finalized at that time and he was given an administrative
delay of up to 30 days.  Orders dated 22 April 2004 amended his report date
to Fort Benning, GA as no earlier than 23 May 2004.  The applicant had
reported to Fort Benning, GA on 22 April 2004.

7.  The applicant's Fort Benning Individual Deployment Site SRP (Soldier
Readiness Processing) Verification sheet shows he was determined to be
deployable on or about 27 April 2004.

8.  By memorandum dated 13 May 2004 and addressed to his home address,
USAHRC – STL notified the applicant his request was approved under the
provisions of Army Regulation 601-25, chapter 4.  Based on the
circumstances of his exemption request, he would be discharged from the
USAR.

9.  Orders dated 19 May 2004 amended the applicant's report date to Fort
Benning, GA as no earlier than 22 April 2004 (the same date as on the
original orders).

10.  By memorandum dated 21 May 2004, the USAHRC – Alexandria, VA approved
the Commander, U. S. Army Infantry Center's request to release the
applicant from active duty early.

11.  On 27 May 2004, the applicant was released from active duty upon the
completion of his required active service and transferred to the IRR.  On
         13 August 2004, he was discharged from the USAR.

12.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Delay and Exemption Board Team, USAHRC – STL.  That office noted the
applicant applied for an exemption from mobilization on 29 March 2004.  He
was
required to sign a consent memorandum prior to processing his request.  In
the memorandum, he acknowledged he could be discharged, transferred to the
USAR Control Group (Standby), or granted a delay in lieu of exemption as a
result of his request.  On 12 May 2004, his request was approved and, as a
result he was discharged from the USAR.

13.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He did not respond within the given time frame.

14.  Army Regulation 601-25 (Delay in Reporting for and Exemption from
Active Duty, Initial Active Duty for Training, and Reserve Forces Duty),
paragraph 4-11 states a member approved for exemption from entry on active
duty must be removed from current status.  A nonobligated member will be
discharged unless the member is eligible and elects transfer to the Retired
Reserve.  An obligated member will be transferred to the USAR Control Group
(Standby – Ineligible).  When determined to be in the best interest of the
Service, the board may recommend an obligated member be discharged.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention he
was discharged only because of a host of clerical and administrative errors
committed by the USAHRC - STL.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant requested immediate
discharge from the Army due to the fact he was re-enlisted on 26 January
2004 based on an incorrect body fat measurement that showed he met the body
fat standards whereas in actuality he exceeded the body fat standards by 8
percent.

3.  The fact USAHRC – STL have sent orders to his home address when he
was already at Fort Benning, GA is immaterial.  The applicant stated he was
   not qualified for reenlistment in January 2004, from the evidence he
provided USAHRC – STL he indeed was not qualified for reenlistment, and he
was discharged per his request.

4.  There is no evidence the applicant was released from active duty for
medical reasons.  While he might have been an "active duty Soldier," he
always remained a USAR asset.  USAHRC – STL had the authority to discharge
him if it saw fit to do so and they did so, per his own request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jev___  __rjw___  __rr____  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.




            ___James E. Vick______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010830                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050815                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.03                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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