RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:               NOVEMBER 16, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:      AR2004100279


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast         |     |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, in effect, that his records be corrected to
show that he was retired from the Army by reason of physical disability.

2.  The applicant states that on 13 December 2001, Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB) action was initiated and that as a result of his inability to
exercise, he began to gain weight.  He states that when the MEB was
initiated he was 5 feet and 11 inches tall and he weighed 185 pounds.  He
goes on to state that he was placed on a physical profile as a result of a
hip condition that occurred while he was in advanced individual training
(AIT) and that his profile included no physical exercise and sitting every
15 minutes.  He states that he believes that his evaluation should not have
been stopped, or that he should have been evaluated while he was in AIT.
He states that he did not have a weight problem until he injured his hip
and that if his neck measurements had been recorded properly, he would not
have been over his body fat content.

3.  The applicant states that he believes that so much of his personnel
file is missing because it has been tampered with and that he was escorted
into a room and given a direct order to stay there until members of his
chain command met with his doctors.  He states that his commander informed
him that she had a right to review his medical records and to pull copies
of documentation contained therein.  He states that when he went to make
copies of his medical records, he was informed that they were missing;
therefore, he was never able to get a complete copy of his records.  He
concludes by stating that he has heard that his commander was relieved of
her duties for fraudulent activities right before he left Germany and that
if the accusation that she was court-martialed is true, an investigation
should be initiated for any fraudulent paperwork that may have been filed
in his record or forwarded through his chain of command.

4.  Although in his application to this Board the applicant states that he
is submitting 78 pages of medical records and conflicting affidavits, he
provides no documentation in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 30 October 2000, he enlisted in the Army Reserve under the Delayed
Entry Program, in Raleigh, North Carolina, for 8 years, in the pay grade of
E-2.  At the time of his enlistment, he underwent a physical examination
and it was noted that he was 70½ inches in height and weighed 225 pounds.
The examining physician deemed him to be overweight by 24 pounds; however,
his maximum allowable body fat content was 24 percent and he had 20.26
percent body fat.  Therefore, he was cleared for enlistment at the time.

2.  On 4 January 2001, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 5 years, in the
pay grade of E-2 and he successfully completed his training as an
information systems operator.

3.  On 12 June 2001, the applicant was seen by a doctor for hip pain which
he contributed to have been the results of his doing flutter kicks.  He was
medically treated and he was placed on a temporary physical profile, which
included no running, marching, standing, flutter kicking or sit-ups for 10
days.

4.  The applicant was seen by a physician again on 11 July 2001, for
complaints of bilateral hip pain with popping worsening when he performed
sit-ups, flutter kicks and running.  He was medically treated and he was
placed on a physical profile, which included no running, jumping, marching,
stretching, walking or sports for 7 days.

5.  On 2 August 2001, he was transferred to Stuttgart Germany.

6.  On 16 October 2001, the applicant was counseled by his first sergeant
regarding his failure to meet height and weight standards in accordance
with Army Regulation 600-9, the potential career consequences, and to
develop a plan of action for improved performance.  During his counseling,
he was informed that his failure to comply with Army height and weight
standards was an overall indication of his less than acceptable body fat
level and that since it was an official weigh in and tape, he would be
flagged and considered for a bar to reenlistment.  He was told that he
would be placed in the unit’s overweight program, where a medical screening
and nutrition class would be arranged.  He was also told that failure to
meet standards of successful progress in losing weight while on the
overweight program for 2 consecutive months could result in his being
eliminated from the Army and that his progress would be monitored by a
monthly weigh-in.

7.  During the counseling, the applicant was informed that achieving Army
height and weight standards required hard work, motivation and
determination to succeed and that his counseling was a corrective action
and not punitive in nature and would assist both him and his command to
ensure that he was capable of achieving Army height and weight standards.
He was also informed that the counseling was based on performance and that
continued poor performance could result in further corrective training; a
rehabilitative transfer; action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
and/or elimination from the Army.  A plan of action was put into place for
the applicant to do after the counseling session to ensure that the agreed
upon goals were met, which included enrolling in the unit’s overweight
program; the first sergeant ensuring that the applicant attended a
nutrition class; development of a diet and his sticking to the diet;
weighing in every week; and his informing his chain of command of any
medical problems that may have developed.  The applicant acknowledged
receipt of the counseling and he indicated that he agreed with the plan of
action.

8.  On 22 October 2001, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) notified
the commander of the Stuttgart Health Clinic that the applicant was found
to have exceeded the weight limits and body fat composition standards
stipulated in Army Regulation 600-9.  His CO requested that he be scheduled
to receive nutritional education and weight reduction counseling at the
earliest convenience. A copy of the notification was forwarded to the
applicant for his information and acknowledgement.  He acknowledged receipt
of the notification indicating that he understood his responsibility to
achieve the body fat standards and to have his weight monitored regularly
to asses his progress.

9.  The applicant was placed on a permanent physical profile on 13 December
2001, which included no knee benders; no side straddle hops; no high jumps;
and no jogging in place.  His physical profile shows that he was not
prevented from running at his own pace and distance; unlimited walking;
unlimited bicycling; unlimited swimming; marching; and push-ups.  The
attending physician indicated that an MEB was being initiated.

10.  The applicant weighed in on 11 March 2002 and at that time he weighed
236 pounds and his body fat content was 26.73 percent.  His weigh in on 2
April 2002, revealed that he weighed 243 pounds and that his body fat
content was 28.58 percent.

11.  On 17 April 2002, the applicant’s CO was notified that he was
undergoing physical disability processing at the Medical Detachment Center
in Heidelberg, Germany.

12.  In a Line of Duty memorandum for the Commander, Physical Disability
Board, dated 2 May 2002, the applicant’s CO stated that the applicant was
caught outside of the barracks after bed check by his drill instructor and
that the drill instructor proceeded to punish him by making him do flutter
kicks.  The CO stated that, according to the applicant, the session lasted
approximately one hour and that he counted in excess of 215 flutter kicks
that he executed.  The CO stated that the applicant felt his hips seize up
45 minutes into the session; however, he continued to do flutter kicks and
after 5 minutes he began to feel a “popping” sensation in his hips.  In the
memorandum the CO states that the applicant informed the drill instructor
about his pain and that the drill instructor told him to continue anyway.
He stated that the applicant could hardly walk the next morning and that
the senior drill sergeant instructed him to go to sick call.  The CO stated
that doctor saw the applicant and he ordered that a bone scan be conducted;
therefore, he was placed on a physical profile for 2 weeks and he was told
to make a follow up appointment to view the results of the bone scan.

13.  In the Line of Duty memorandum to the Physical Disability Board, the
CO went on to explain that the applicant was flagged due to failure to meet
height and weight standards in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 and
that since his arrival at that unit, he had gained 33 pounds and his body
fat increased from 22.43 percent to 28.58 percent.  The CO stated that
according to another soldier in the unit, the applicant approached him in
regard to his medical condition (hip pain) and that the other soldier
submitted a sworn statement to that effect.  The CO expressed his belief
that the applicant was manipulating the system to achieve personal gain and
that he should have been able to lose weight; however, he refused to put
forth any efforts.  The CO stated that the applicant’s problem was ongoing
and therefore, he should not be retained on active duty; however, he should
be chaptered out of the Army instead of receiving an MEB.

14.  On 7 May 2002, the applicant was counseled regarding his failure to
meet body fat standards.  He was informed that accordingly to Army
Regulation
635-200, chapter 18, section 18-2, paragraph a(2), if no medical condition
exists, initiation of separation proceedings or a local bar to reenlistment
was required for soldiers who do not make a minimum satisfactory progress
and still exceed the body fat standards for any two consecutive months, or
after a period of 6 months, in the Army body fat reduction program.  His
counselor stated how between 26 November 2001 and 11 February 2002, his
weight and increased and that during the month of March he lost 4 pounds
and between 11 March 2002 and 2 April 2002, his weight had increased by 7
pounds.  The applicant’s counselor went on to state that, according to his
13 December 2001 physical profile, he should have been able to lose weight;
however, he refused to put forth any effort towards reducing his body fat
or weight.

15.  During the counseling session, the applicant was informed that if his
conduct continued, action may be initiated to separate him from the Army
under the provisions of Army Regulation 623-200, chapters 5, 9, 13, or 14.
He was further informed of the type of discharge that he could receive and
the effects of a less than honorable discharge.  A plan of action was
outlined for the applicant, which included that he produce his weight and
body fat tapes for the month of May; that he be scheduled a physical
examination; and that he be scheduled for a mental evaluation.  At the
close of the counseling session, the applicant indicated that he disagreed
with the information contained in the counseling form and in the remarks
section he commented that he had not reached optimum health care and
optimum pay (in accordance with his current rank and dependant status).  He
also indicated that the applicable regulation provided for individuals if
no medical conditions existed and that he had a medical condition.

16.  On 4 June 2002, a final response (in the form of a memorandum) was
prepared to a Congressional Inquiry by a Congressional Liaison Officer at
Headquarters, United States Army Europe Regional Medical Command, regarding
the applicant. In the memorandum the liaison officer stated that the
applicant reported that he had been on a permanent physical profile from
13 December 2001 through 7 May 2002; that he was undergoing a MEB for
leiberal tears of the hip; and that he was concerned about the type of
discharge that he might receive.  The liaison officer stated that the Army
hospital in Heidelberg reported that the orthopedic physician at the
Stuttgart Health Clinic reviewed the applicant’s medical record and
provided that he was profiled for bilateral hip pain on 12 June 2001, with
a 2-week history; that the initial diagnosis was bursitis; and that he was
given a profile for 10 days.  The orthopedic physician stated a second
profile for the same complaint was written for 7 days on 11 July 2001; and
that he was given another temporary profile on 26 September 2001.  The
orthopedic physician went on to state that in October 2001, an orthopedic
evaluation was recommended to evaluate the applicant for a possible
permanent profile and that he was examined on 11 December 2001, after he
claimed to have degenerative arthritis.  The physician stated that he was
treated with Naprosyn 500mg, which he had been taking since September 2001,
and he was placed on another temporary profile pending further orthopedic
evaluation.

17.  The 4 June 2002 memorandum prepared by the Congressional Liaison
Officer, further indicates that the applicant was seen by another
orthopedic physician on 13 December 2001, who diagnosed him with bilateral
snapping hips (iliotibial band syndrome or ITB).  The physician issued him
a permanent profile, which prohibited the knee bender, side straddle hop,
high jumps, and jogging in place and he initiated a MEB.  However,
acceptable aerobic activities included running at his own pace and
distance; unlimited walking; bicycling and swimming; and all functional
activities including marching and carrying a rucksack, were permitted
without restriction.  Sit-ups were the only prescribed


portion of the physical fitness test.  The physician stated that the
applicant’s treatment plan outlined a program of physical therapy, non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, and weight loss; and that the
applicant could expect chronic intermittent recurrences, less often and
less severe if he loses weight and does his physical training exercise.

18.  In the 4 June 2002 memorandum the orthopedic physician stated that the
applicant was seen again on 29 January 2002, and that he was still
complaining of hip pain, that was not well controlled by Naprosyn or
Motrin.  He was told to lose weight, stop smoking and to try aerobic
activity and he was prescribed Voltaren for the pain.  The same orthopedic
physician examined him again on 23 April 2002.  The examining physician
stated that his weight had increased and his blood pressure was elevated
and he, again, counseled the applicant to lose weight.  On 26 April 2002,
he was seen by an orthopedic surgeon who concurred with the previous
diagnosis and recommendations.  The applicant was examined by an orthopedic
surgeon again on 13 May 2002, and the attending physician determined that
his weight was the most likely cause of his symptoms, not a byproduct of
the ITB.  The same physician downgraded his profile and terminated the
pending MEB.  The Congressional Liaison Officer stated that, according to
the orthopedic physician, ITB is considered to be a functional disorder and
that two orthopedic surgeons had seen and evaluated the applicant and made
the same diagnosis and treatment recommendations.  The physician stated
that the applicant’s obesity had progressed in spite of his participation
in the overweight program and that since his physical profile had been
downgraded and the MEB terminated, the applicant’s command could proceed
with his separation for failure to comply with weight standards or show
improvement while on the weight management program.  The memorandum
indicates that the Commander, United States Army Europe Regional Medical
Command, or his designated representative had reviewed and concurred with
the response to the Congressional Inquiry.

19.  On 24 June 2002, the applicant weighed in at 243 pounds and his body
fat content was 29.61 percent.

20.  On 8 July 2002, the applicant was notified that he was being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 18, due to his failure to meet body fat standards.  He acknowledged
receipt of the notification on 9 July 2002.  After consulting with counsel,
he submitted a



statement in his own behalf detailing what he believes to be the events
that led to the recommendation for discharge and stating that he had
insufficient knowledge of why the MEB was automatically stopped.  He also
stated that he believed that despite the military doctors’ opinion, his
medical condition was the contributing factor to his overweight problem.

21.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
10 July 2002.  Accordingly, on 7 September 2002, the applicant was
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 18, as
a result of weight control failure.  He had completed 1 year, 8 months and
4 days of total active service and he was furnished an Honorable Discharge
Certificate.

22.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the discharge of enlisted
soldiers from the Army.  Chapter 18 pertains to the weight control program
and states, in pertinent part, that Soldiers who fail to meet the body fat
standards set forth in Army Regulation 600-9 shall be separated per this
chapter when such condition is the sole basis for separation.  Separation
action may not be initiated under this chapter until the Soldier has been
given a reasonable opportunity to comply with and meet the body fat
standards.  Soldiers who have been diagnosed by health care personnel as
having a medical condition that precludes them from participating in the
Army body fat reduction program will not be separated under this chapter.
If no medical condition exists, initiation of separation proceedings is
required for soldiers who do not make satisfactory progress in a weight
control program after a period of 6 months, unless the responsible
commander chooses to impose a bar to reenlistment.  Also, initiation of
separation proceedings is required for soldiers who fail to meet screening
table weight and body fat standards during the 12-month period following
removal from the weight control program, provided no medical condition
exists.  The service of soldiers separated will be characterized as
honorable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.




3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  However, the evidence of
record shows that although he did suffer a hip injury while he was in the
Army and at one point during that time he was pending review by an MEB, the
injury was not severe enough to warrant his processing through medical
channels.  He was seen and evaluated by several orthopedic doctors and the
agreement was that his weight was the most likely cause of his symptoms.
Therefore, his physical profile was upgraded and the MEB was terminated.

4.  He was placed in a weight control program to afford him the opportunity
to comply with and meet the body fat standards.  In accordance with the
applicable regulation, Soldiers who have been diagnosed by health care
personnel as having a medical condition that precludes them from
participating in the Army body fat reduction program will not be separated
under this chapter.  If no medical condition exists, initiation of
separation proceedings is required for soldiers who do not make
satisfactory progress in a weight control program after a period of 6
months.  According to the evidence of record, the applicant failed to make
satisfactory progress while he was in the weight control program.
Therefore, his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 18, as a result of his being deemed a weight control failure, was
appropriate.

5.  At no time while he was in the Army did the applicant ever weigh 185
pounds nor did he ever have any medically unfitting disability, which
required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for
physical disability retirement or separation.

6.  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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

elp_____  mm_____  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.





            _____Melvin H. Meyer____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100279                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041116                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20020907                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 16/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE       |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  995  |145.0000.0000/PHYSICAL DISABILITY       |
|2.  1001                |145.0600.0000/ADMIN DISCHARGE PEND      |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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