RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004968


      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             |
|     |Mr. John J. Wendland, Jr.         |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald W. Steenfott           |     |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 the separation code and
narrative reason for separation for her period of active duty with the U.S.
Army be changed to acknowledge that her injury occurred in basic training
and was not a pre-existing injury.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her injury occurred during basic
combat training as a direct result of the training.  She also states that
this injury did not exist prior to her service, the U.S. Army should pay to
repair her injury, and also pay all related medical bills.

3.  The applicant provides copies of documents from her civilian medical
records; including 42 documents, dated from 12 January 1998 through 15
March 2004 (i.e., prior to her entry on active duty in the Regular Army),
and 11 documents, dated 1 October 2004 through 3 November 2005 (i.e.,
subsequent to her discharge from the Regular Army).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on
4 August 2004, the date of her discharge.  The application submitted in
this case is dated 20 March 2006.

2.  The applicant's military service records show that she enlisted in the
U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) for a period of 8 years on 10 March 2004 and
entered active duty in the Regular Army (RA) on 3 June 2004.

3.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DD Form
2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 30 January 2004.  The purpose
of the medical examination was based on the applicant's request to enlist
in the U.S. Army.  Item 74 (Examinee/Applicant) of this document contains a
check mark in the entry "Is Qualified for Service in SPF DAR."  Item 85 of
the DD Form 2808 shows that the document was administratively reviewed for
completeness and accuracy on 30 January 2004.

4.  The applicant's military service records are absent documentation
relating to her administrative discharge under the provisions of paragraph
5-11 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations).


5.  The applicant's military service records contain a DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). This document
shows, in pertinent part, that on 4 August 2004, the applicant received an
uncharacterized discharge from the U.S. Army after completing 2 months and
2 days net active service.  This document also shows that the reason for
the applicant's discharge was "failure to meet procurement medical
standards", the separation authority was Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph
5-11, and the separation code issued was "JFW." This document further shows
in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated) that the applicant placed
her signature on the discharge document.

6.  In support of her application, the applicant provides documents from
her civilian medical records.  The 42 documents, dated from 12 January 1998
through 15 March 2004 and completed prior to her entry on active duty in
the RA, provide no evidence of an injury to the applicant's left leg.  The
11 documents, dated 1 October 2004 through 3 November 2005 and completed
subsequent to her discharge from the RA, in pertinent part, document the
applicant's left leg/knee pain.  In particular, the Harrison Silverdale
Hospital, Emergency Department report, dated 1 October 2004, shows, in
pertinent part, that the applicant complained of pain, mostly in her left
foot with occasional shooting pain in the leg, which she had been
experiencing for 2 weeks.  The Harrison Memorial Hospital, Emergency
Department report, dated 31 December 2004, shows, in pertinent part, that
the applicant complained of pain in her left knee and swelling involving
her calf and toes.  This document also shows the applicant reported that
this "started approximately 6 months ago during basic training" and that
she "has had multiple episodes since then."

7.  Paragraph 5-11 of Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time of the
applicant's discharge, provides for the separation of personnel who did not
meet procurement medical fitness standards.  The regulation provides that
Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness
standards when accepted for enlistment or who became medically disqualified
under these standards prior to entry on active duty, or active duty in
initial entry training, may be separated.  Such conditions must be
discovered during the first 6 months of active duty.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in
effect at the time of the applicant's discharge shows, in pertinent part,
that for SPD Code "JFW" the Regulatory Authority is "Army Regulation 635-
200, paragraph 5-11", and the Narrative Reason for Separation is "Failed
Medical/Physical Procurement Standards."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that the separation code and
narrative reason for separation for her period of active duty in the Army
should be changed because her injury occurred in basic training and was not
a pre-existing injury.
She also contends, in effect, that the U.S. Army should pay to repair her
injury and also pay all related medical bills.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was found medically
qualified for service in the U.S. Army on 30 January 2004.  The evidence of
record also shows that the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 10 March 2004
and entered active duty in the RA on 3 June 2004; more than 4 months after
the date of her entrance medical examination.  The evidence of record
further shows that the applicant was discharged on 4 August 2004 based upon
her failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  Moreover, the
evidence of record shows that, at that time, the applicant reviewed and
acknowledged the reason for her discharge by placing her signature in Item
21 of the DD Form 214.

3.  The documentary evidence provided by the applicant fails to show an
injury to her left leg or knee prior to her entry on active duty.  The
documentary evidence
does show that nearly 2 months after the applicant's discharge from the
U.S. Army (i.e., on 1 October 2004) she sought medical treatment for pain
in her left leg.  However, this document also shows that the applicant
reported the pain began approximately 2 weeks prior to that date (i.e.,
subsequent to her discharge from the U.S. Army).  The evidence of record
further shows that on 31 December 2004, the applicant sought medical
treatment for pain in her left knee, and swelling involving her calf and
toes, and reported at that time that the pain had "started approximately 6
months ago during basic training."  However, the applicant offers no
explanation regarding the different dates she reports with respect to the
onset of the injury, nor does she provide documentary evidence
substantiating the actual occurrence of the injury.

4.  There is a presumption of administrative regularity in the conduct of
governmental affairs.  This presumption can be applied to any review unless
there is substantial creditable evidence to rebut the presumption.  In this
case, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient creditable evidence to
rebut this presumption.  In view of all of the foregoing, and in the
absence of documentary evidence to the contrary, the preponderance of the
evidence indicates that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged
based on her failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.
Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of the SPD Code that
is shown on her DD Form 214.  In addition, she is not entitled to have the
U.S. Army provide medical treatment for her injury, nor the payment of
medical bills that she may have incurred as relates to the injury.

5.  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

___LDS__  ___PHM_  ___DWS_  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.





                                            Linda D. Simmons____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004968                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061205                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHAR                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20040804                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-40, Paragraph 5-11               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Failure to Meet Procurement Medical     |
|                        |Fitness Standards                       |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |145.0200.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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