RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            18 November 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004105716


      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 C. Hise                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Hubert O. Fry                 |     |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 be changed to a medical
retirement.

2.  The applicant states he feels they should not have waited until the
very last day of his contract to inform him that if he wanted to be
considered for a medical discharge then he would have to extend his
enlistment to appear before a physical evaluation board (PEB).  On 31
October 2003, he attended a military occupational specialty (MOS) medical
retention board (MMRB).  Based on his enlistment contract, he should have
been discharged on 6 November 2003; however, because of an apparent
oversight he was discharged on 25 November 2003.  If he had not made
previous plans based on being discharged in November 2003 and if he were
not a single parent responsible for a 5-year old son, he possibly could
have arranged to extend his enlistment.  However, he could not postpone his
prior commitments and obligations to his son at the last minute.

3.  The applicant provides a statement of retirement points; a memorandum
from The Federal Strategic Health Alliance (FEDS_HEAL) dated 13 June 2003;
a memorandum from Headquarters, 89th Regional Readiness Command dated    23
July 2003; a 2-page Standard Form 507 (Clinical Record), Report on
Functional Capacity Certificate; a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile); a DD
Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) dated 13 June 2003; a DD Form
2807-1 (Report of Medical History) dated 4 June 2003; two DD Forms 4836
(Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment); an Acknowledgement of
Notification and Counseling with an additional DD Form 3349; and his
discharge orders dated 25 November 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After being released from active duty with the Regular Army on 15 May
1991, the applicant was transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR).  He
has several discharge orders on file that may have been revoked as his
statement of retirement points indicates he had continuous service in the
USAR.  He was awarded primary MOS 62E (Heavy Construction Equipment
Operator) around February 1999.

2.  One DA Form 4836 the applicant provided shows he extended his
reenlistment agreement of 6 November 2000 for a period of 2 years on 14
July 2001.  The other one shows he extended his agreement of 6 November
2003
(sic, mostly likely meant to read 6 November 2000) for a period of 6 months
on   4 November 2003.  However, the applicant did not sign the latter DA
Form 4836.

3.  The DD Form 2808 provided by the applicant shows he completed a
retention examination on 13 June 2003 and was found qualified for service.
The FEDS_HEAL memorandum provided by the applicant shows he was physically
fit for retention under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 but he did
not meet the criteria of the Cardiovascular Screening Program (CVSP) due to
high cholesterol and was referred to a medical provider outside of the
military system for follow-up.  The results of the physical examination
required the commander to review and/or take appropriate action.

4.  On 20 June 2003, the applicant was given a permanent physical profile
of 113111 for bone spurs in both feet and assignment limitations of
"limitations in wearing military footwear, limitations in lifting
carrying."

5.  The Nurse Staff Advisor to the 88th Regional Readiness Command reviewed
the physical examination conducted by FEDS_HEAL and found that the
applicant qualified for retention but had medical condition(s) that
required an MMRB.

6.  On 19 October 2003, the applicant was notified to appear before an
MMRB.  The results of the MMRB are not available.

7.  The applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR on 25 November
2003.  His discharge orders note that he was held beyond his normal
discharge date through no fault of his.

8.  The National Institutes of Health Internet site Medlineplus.gov defines
a bone spur (osteophyte) as a bony growth often associated with
osteoarthritis.  Osteoarthritis affects the cartilage that cushions the
ends of bones in joints.  Over time, this cartilage may wear down and its
smooth surface roughens.  The body usually tries to repair this damage but
the repairs may result instead in growth of new bone along the sides of the
existing bone (bone spurs).

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  Paragraph 8-6 states that, when a commander or other
proper authority believes that a soldier not on extended active duty is
unable to perform the duties of his or her grade or rank because of
physical disability, the commander will refer the soldier for medical
evaluation according to Army Regulation 40-501.


10.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for
enlistment, retention, and separation.  Paragraph 3-13 (conditions of the
lower extremities) does not list bone spurs as a condition requiring
referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB).  Paragraph 3-14
(miscellaneous conditions of the extremities) does not list bone spurs as a
condition requiring referral to an MEB.  Paragraph 3-14c states that
osteoarthritis, with severe symptoms associated with impairment of
function, supported by x-ray evidence and documented history of recurrent
incapacity for prolonged periods, is a cause for referral to an MEB.

11.  Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 8-25 discusses the CVSP/Health Risk
Appraisal.  Using CVSP criteria, abnormalities or significant
cardiovascular risk factors (to include a total cholesterol to HDL ratio of
equal-to-or-greater than 6.0 or a total cholesterol of equal-to-or-greater
than 270 milligrams per deciliter) will be used for medical treatment and
referral purposes only.  Reserve Component soldiers will be referred to
their own medical provider outside of the military medical system.

12.  Army Regulation 600-60 (Physical Performance Evaluation System),
paragraph 2-2 states that soldiers must be referred to an MMRB when issued
a permanent DA Form 3349 with a numerical designator of 3 or 4 in one of
the profile factors unless direct referral to a PEB is required.  Paragraph
2-3f(6) states that an enlisted soldier who is within 90 days of his or her
expiration of term of service (ETS) and does not intend to reenlist or
extend his or her enlistment will not be referred to an MMRB.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been carefully considered.  By his own
statement, he had no plans to reenlist or extend his ETS after November
2003.  Therefore, he should never have even been scheduled to appear before
an MMRB (the results of which are not available).  Since the physical
examination conducted by FEDS_HEAL found him to be qualified for retention,
and he provides no evidence to show that he could not perform his duties,
there was no reason to refer him to a PEB.  .

2.  It appears the applicant was erroneously counseled that he could
request an extension to appear before a PEB.  A DA Form 4836 was prepared
to extend him for 6 months; however, he did not sign the form.  This
error/oversight was caught around 25 November 2003, three weeks after his
ETS would have expired, and rectified by properly discharging him and
noting he was held beyond his normal discharge date through no fault of
his.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jch___  __le____  __hof_____  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 C. Hise_______
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105716                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041118                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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