RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:              OCTOBER 26, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:        AR2004102094


      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. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Eloise Prendergast            |     |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 he be compensated for pes planus/plantar
fascitis; a medical condition that resulted in his being discharged by
reason of physical disability.

2.  The applicant states that when he entered the Army he had a physical
examination that was negative for any physical problems.  He states that
the medical condition that he was diagnosed with did not exist prior to his
military service.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Prior to his enlistment, the applicant underwent a medical examination
for the purpose of enlisting in the Army, which is currently unavailable
for review by this Board.  However, the records do show that he enlisted in
the Army on 13 May 1999, in the pay grade of E-1 and that he successfully
completed his training as a quartermaster and chemical equipment repairer.

2.  The available records show that the applicant was placed on a permanent
physical profile on 22 March 2000, after he was diagnosed with chronic
plantar fascitis.

3.  On 10 April 2000, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) forwarded a
memorandum to the President of the Military Occupational Specialty
(MOS)/Medical Retention Board (MMRB), recommending that the applicant
undergo Medical Evaluation (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)
proceedings under the Physical Evaluation System.  The CO based his
recommendation on the applicant’s permanent profile for chronic plantar
fascitis. In the memorandum, his CO stated that his condition prevented him
from standing for long periods of time, marching, running or walking on
uneven services.  The CO stated that combat training requires soldiers to
be able to carry rucksack and to be able to pass an Army Physical Fitness
Test and that the applicant’s condition prevented him from being combat
ready or worldwide deployable.




4.  The MEB findings and recommendations are not available for review by
this Board.  However, the available records show that the applicant
underwent an informal PEB on 10 August 2000.  The PEB described the
applicant’s conditions as bilateral pes planus and plantar fascia heel pain
which is more than moderately symptomatic for which the applicant was
intermittently taking pain medication.  The PEB noted that the applicant
started to have knee pain 2 weeks into basic training without any history
of trauma/injury and that a physical examination revealed that he was 71
inches tall, 260 pounds with bilateral pes planus with weight bearing and
mild tenderness at the plantar fascia insertions bilaterally.  The PEB
determined that his condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and that his
condition was not permanently aggravated by service, but is the result of
natural progression.  The PEB further determined that since EPTS conditions
are not compensable under the Army Physical Disability System, the proper
disposition for the applicant was separation from the Army without
entitlement to disability benefits.  The PEB found the applicant to be
physically unfit for retention in the Army and recommended that he be
discharged from the Army without disability benefits.

5.  On 16 August 2000, the applicant concurred with the PEB findings and
waived his right to a formal hearing in his case.

6.  On 18 August 2000, the applicant changed his mind and he submitted
documentation indicating that he did not concur with the PEB findings and
he demanded a formal hearing with representation by counsel.

7.  A formal PEB convened on 26 October 2000 and the findings and
recommendations made by the formal PEB mirrored the findings and
recommendations made by the informal PEB.  The applicant indicated that he
concurred with the findings and recommendation by the board.

8.  Accordingly, on 11 January 2001, the applicant was honorably discharged
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 4, due to an EPTS
physical disability, as determined by a PEB.  He had completed 1 year, 7
months and 29 days of total active service.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation), in effect at the time, established the Army Physical
Disability Evaluation System and set forth the policies, responsibilities,
and procedures that applied in determining whether a soldier was unfit
because of physical disability to reasonably perform their duties.  If a
soldier was found unfit because of physical disability, the regulation
provided for the disposition of the soldier according to applicable laws
and regulations.
10.  Chapter 9 of the regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the
separation of an enlisted soldier for non-service aggravated conditions
that existed prior to service (EPTS) when the soldier requested waiver of
PEB evaluation.  In order to qualify for separation under these provisions
the soldier had to be eligible for referral into the disability system
based on not meeting medical retention standards as determined by the MEB.
The disqualifying defect or condition must have existed prior to entry on
current period of duty and could not have been aggravated while on active
duty.  In addition, it had to be determined that further hospitalization or
institutional care was not required and the soldier, after being advised of
the right to a full and fair hearing, had to waive PEB action.  Finally,
the soldier had to be advised that a PEB evaluation was required for
receipt of Army disability benefits, but waiver of the PEB will not prevent
applying for VA benefits.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his physical disability
was incurred in the line of duty.  However, the Board determined that his
claim is not supported by either the evidence of record nor independent
evidence submitted by the applicant.  Therefore, the Board concluded relief
is not warranted in this case.

2.  The Board found that the medical evidence of record, as documented in
the published PEB proceedings, clearly showed that the applicant’s physical
disability was the result of a medical condition that existed prior to his
entry on active duty.  Subsequently, these findings were approved by
competent medical authority and the applicant concurred in the findings and
recommendations of the PEB.

3.  The Board was satisfied that both the informal and the formal PEB were
conducted properly; that all requirements of law and regulation were met;
and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected through the
separation process.  A review of the available records fails to produce
evidence to the contrary.

4.  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.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

ep______  js______  cg ______  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.





                                  __     ___John Slone____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004102094                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041026                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  995  |145.0000.0000/PHYSICAL DISABILITY       |
|2.  998                 |145.0300.0000/EPTS/NOT AGGRAVATED       |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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