Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009686C071029
Original file (20060009686C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 April 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060009686


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Luis Almodova                 |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |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, reconsideration of his request that
Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), of his DD Form 214, Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the Army did not send him to any
further testing and just made a separation decision based on a one time
hospital record that was not significant.  He submits test results that
were done by a pulmonary specialist that were accepted by the border
patrol which stated he was physically fit and able to meet any standard.
He adds, "as you may know this is the toughest academy out there."

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provided a copy of his DD
Form 214, with a separation date of 3 June 2004; a copy of the results of a
follow-up examination administered by Pulmonary Physicians of South
Florida, dated 11 October 2005; a copy of an undated patient information
sheet related to the applicant; and a copy of an undated Emergency
Physician Record prepared by the Coral Gables Hospital, on 27 January 2000,
when the applicant was 19 years of age.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were
summarized, in previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army
Board for the Correction of Military Records in Docket Number
AR20050006481, on 5 January 2006.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant enlisted in the Florida Army National
Guard on 28 October 2003.  He entered active duty for training (ADT) on 8
April 2004.

3.  The applicant's record shows a physical profile was imposed on him for
the medical condition of "Asthma" on 3 May 2004.  Assignment limitations
commensurate with the physical profile were imposed on the applicant at the
time.

4.  The evidence shows the applicant was released from ADT and discharged
from the Reserve of the Army and returned to the Army National Guard, under
the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11,
on
3 June 2004.  On the date of his release from ADT, the applicant had
completed 1 month and 26 days net active service, with no record of time
lost.

5.  On 11 October 2005, the applicant underwent a follow-up pulmonary
examination at the Pulmonary Physicians of South Florida, LLC.  The history
section of the physician's report, tells about his experience and release
from ADT.  At the time of his follow-up examination, the applicant reported
to the examining physician, he was not experiencing any symptoms and was
not taking any medications.  The examining physician made an entry in the
record which states, "The severity of the symptoms are mild (emphasis
added) and without any specific triggers.  There have been no recent
symptoms."

6.  It was noted this follow-up pulmonary examination was conducted at the
Pulmonary Physicians of South Florida, LLC, the location at which his
earlier pulmonary physical examination was conducted.  It was further noted
that not all the results for those areas that were examined previously and
the "Impression" and "Recommendation" sections of the report, along with
the signature of the examining physician were purposefully or accidentally
not submitted by the applicant for the Board's review.

7.  It is apparent from the verbiage in the follow-up examination report
the applicant presented the examining physician the medical/physical
requirements for the position of border patrol agent.  The physician
opined, "Patient is able to perform all duties as outlined in the
documentation presented to me for the position of border patrol agent. - -
- -As stated above, I have reviewed the summary of medical standards and
the patient appears to be able to complete the requirements as indicated."

8.  The applicant provided no correspondence to show the results of the
follow-up pulmonary examination had been accepted by the border patrol.

9.  The undated patient information sheet related to the applicant; and the
copy of the undated Emergency Physician Record, prepared by the Coral
Gables Hospital, both indicate the applicant was 19 years of age at the
time these records were prepared.

      a.  The patient information sheet shows the admission diagnosis was,
"shortness of breath."
      b.  The undated Emergency Physician Record, prepared by the Coral
Gables Hospital, shows the applicant had a history of asthma.  When
examined, he was found to be, "wheezing."  The clinical impression recorded
on the Emergency Physician Record, was, "Asthma – acute exacerbation."

10.  AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, provides, in pertinent part,
for the separation of personnel who do not meet procurement medical fitness
standards. Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement
medical fitness standards when accept for enlistment or who became
medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty,
may be separated.  Such conditions must be discovered during the first six-
months of active duty.  Further, the regulation stipulates that Soldiers
who are separated while in an entry level status and who are separated
under the provision of paragraph 5-11, of this regulation, will receive an
uncharacterized description of service.

11.  AR 40-501, Chapter 2, prescribes the medical conditions and physical
defects that are causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and
induction into military service.  Unless otherwise stipulated, the
conditions listed in this chapter are those that would be disqualifying
by virtue of current diagnosis, or for which the candidate has a verified
past medical history.  Asthma is listed amongst the medically
disqualifying conditions.  Asthma, including reactive airway disease,
exercise-induced bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed
and symptomatic after the 13th birthday, is disqualifying.  Reliable
diagnostic criteria may include any of the following elements:
substantiated history of cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and/or dyspnea
that persists or recurs over a prolonged period of time, generally more
than 12 months.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant had a history, after his 13th birthday, of asthma before
his entry on ADT.

2.  The evidence shows a physical profile was imposed on the applicant on
3 May 2004 for the medical condition of asthma.  He was referred to and his
medical conditions was considered by an Entrance Physical Standards Board
(EPSBD).

3.  The applicant provided no evidence the border patrol accepted the
results of his pulmonary examination follow-up results.  It appears the
applicant formulated his statement/impression from the contents of the
examining physician's medical examination report wherein he stated, "I have
reviewed the summary of medical standards [for the position of border
patrol agent] and the patient appears (emphasis added) to be able to
complete the requirements as indicated."

4.  Not all the results for those areas that were examined previously and
the "Impression" and "Recommendation" sections of the report, along with
the signature of the examining physician were purposefully or accidentally
not submitted by the applicant for the Board's review

5.  Notwithstanding the above, the applicant did not meet the medical
standards for enlistment and/or retention in the Army according to AR 40-
501.  This regulation provides that individuals who are symptomatic for
asthma, including reactive airway disease, exercise-induced bronchospasm or
asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed and symptomatic after the 13th
birthday, are disqualified from service in the military.

6.  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___  __JCR__  __SWF__  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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050006481 dated 5 January 2006.




                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060009686                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070405                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHAR                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20040603                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-11   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |144.0400                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005525

    Original file (20090005525.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's medical records are not available for the Board's review. All documents pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available for the Board's review; however, a completed DD Form 214 is on file in his service personnel record. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03356

    Original file (BC 2014 03356.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03356 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel medically retired or discharged) be changed to allow reentry in the military. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001909C070206

    Original file (20050001909C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was diagnosed with bronchitis and given some medication. The applicant's service medical records are not available. The evidence (the EPSBD proceedings) she provided does not state she completed a methacoline challenge test.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00681

    Original file (PD2012-00681.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered the VCD condition diagnosed in July 2001, considered a Category II condition by the PEB and rated 0% by the VA. After follow up with the speech therapist in August 2001, there were no further documented complaints related to VCD symptoms in the service treatment record and no further visits required for care of the condition. In the matter of the reactive airway disease condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 30%, coded 6602 IAW VASRD...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017887

    Original file (20130017887.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show an LD finding of In Line of Duty – Not Due to Own Misconduct because his medical records show a history of asthma prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in 2007 and his medical condition was aggravated by exposure to burn pits while serving in Afghanistan. The evidence of record shows the governing Army regulation provides, "If an EPTS condition is not aggravated by military service, the determination will be "Not in LD -...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063983C070421

    Original file (2001063983C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. It was recommended that he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01008

    Original file (BC 2014 01008.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The specific reason for the proposed action was based on a Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 18 Jan 12, which indicated the applicant should not have been able to join the Air Force because of reactive airway disease. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the type of separation, narrative reason for separation, separation code and the character of service was appropriately administered and was within the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00721

    Original file (PD2011-00721.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PEB adjudicated the asthma condition as unfitting, rated 30%; with application of Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and the CI was placed on Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) at 30%. Although originally prescribed a daily use inhaled maintenance/preventive medication, the CI elected to discontinue the medication and at final separation there was no indication that a daily-use inhalation preventive medication was used or prescribed. The NARSUM...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01894

    Original file (BC-2006-01894.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was tested for asthma and subsequently discharged from the Air Force. Furthermore, the Medical Consultant states in order to qualify for MGIB benefits, the applicant was required to complete 36 months of active duty service and receive an honorable discharge. The applicant's concealment of a disqualifying medical condition at the time of enlistment examination and non-distinguished conduct while in training does not merit action by the Secretary to change his characterization of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01083

    Original file (PD2012 01083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was issued a permanent P3 profile andreferred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).Asthma and mild restrictive pattern were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501.The PEB adjudicated the asthma and mild restrictive pattern as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals, and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. a month prior to the PEB,...