BOARD DATE:	  22 February 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100017536 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed.

2.  She states that:  

   a.  she had a seizure disorder as a child which she out grew and stopped taking medication in 1989;

   b.  her recruiter received a waiver from the National Surgeon General in 1989 stating she could enlist and attend Airborne School as stated in her contract after reviewing all of her medical records and letters of recommendations from various persons; 

   c.  she had a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and an electroencephalogram (EEG) done at the Army's request before submission of paperwork to the Surgeon General;

   d.  she passed the Military Entrance Processing Station examination; 

   e.  after being at basic training for approximately 2 weeks, her senior drill sergeant found out about her past and referred her to the neurologist who stated "I don't care who let you in, you (are) out";


   f.  she was placed on a "dead man's" profile on 2 October 1989;

   g.  she was sent home on 14 November 1989;

   h.  she believed her entire medical history was given to everyone involved prior to joining the Army; 

   i.  she believes that the statement "did not meet procurement med fitness standards – no disability" is incorrect; and

   j.  the Army failed to honor their contract and being forced to leave the Army was unjustified.

3.  The applicant provides copies of her:

* DD Form 214 
* DD Form 3268 (Statement for Enlistment)
* Five third-party letters used during her initial processing physical
* Five copies of EEG and MRI reports used during her initial processing physical

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 October 1989.  Her DD Form 3286 shows she reenlisted for the U.S. Army Airborne Enlistment Option.  

3.  Her record contains a Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 15 May 1989, which shows in item 74 (Summary of Defects and Diagnoses) that waivers were requested and received from the Office of the Surgeon, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, for seizures and enuresis, based on her EEG and MRI reports dating from 1983 to 1989.
4.  Her records contain a Standard Form 513 (Consultation Sheet) which shows she was referred to Neurology on 25 October 1989, by the troop medical clinic because she was having recurrent enuresis which required a waiver for her to enter the service but there was no other evidence of seizure disorder.

5.  On 31 October 1989, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) evaluated her for a seizure disorder.  She had seizures from the age of 2 and a history of enuresis up to the present.  She continued to have bedwetting following her entry on active duty.  A review of her medical records showed multiple extensive workups for epilepsy in the past with an abnormal EEG, chronic phenobarbital treatment from age 2 to 13, as well as an MRI which was done as recently as 1988 because of a breakthrough in her enuresis.  

6.  The EPSBD found she could not perform the aerobic portion of the Army physical fitness test, jumps, climbing, marching.  No assignment requiring handling of heavy materials including weapons.  No overheard work, no pull-ups, pushups, or physical training.  No assignment to units where the sudden loss of consciousness would be danger to self or to others. The EPSBD diagnosed her with chronic idiopathic epilepsy and enuresis that existed prior to service (EPTS). The board found she did not meet medical fitness standards for enlistment under the provisions of Army Regulation, 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-11, her conditions were EPTS, and they were not service-aggravated.

7.  On 5 November 1989, she acknowledged that she was informed of the findings of the EPSBD and advised that legal counsel from an Army attorney was available to her or she may consult a civilian attorney at her own expense.  She was further advised that she may request to be discharged from the Army without delay or she may request retention on active duty.  She concurred with the proceedings and requested to be discharged from the Army without delay.

8.  On 14 November 1989, she was discharged by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  Her service was uncharacterized.  She completed 1 month and 11 days of net active service this period.

9.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), paragraph 6-15, in effect at the time, list the causes of medical unfitness for military service. List Enuresis, which is determined to be a symptom of an organic defect not amenable to treatment. 

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 specifically 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 entrance on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated.  Such conditions must be discovered during the first
6 months of active duty and will result in an EPSBD.

11.  A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that: 

* a medical condition was identified by the appropriate medical authority within 6 months of the Soldier’s initial entrance on active duty
* the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time
* the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3

12.  The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the Soldier is in an entry level status.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the reason for her discharge should be changed was considered and found to be without merit.

2.  Evidence of record shows she was diagnosed with a seizure disorder from the age of 2 and she had a history of enuresis. 

3.  Her medical condition, which existed prior to service remanifested itself within 180 days of her entering active duty, she was and she continues to have recurrent enuresis, which does not meet medical procurement standards, while she was in an entry level status.  

4.  A medical condition discovered during the first 6 months of service is referred to an EPSBD.  An EPSBD established that the applicant's medical condition:

* was identified by the appropriate medical authority within 6 months of her initial entrance on active duty
* would have permanently or temporarily disqualified her for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time

5.  She was advised that an Army attorney was available to her or she could have consulted a civilian attorney at her own expense.  She was further advised that she could request a discharge without delay or she could request retention on active duty.  

6.  She concurred with the EPSBD proceedings and requested discharge from the Army without delay.  Therefore, her administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with the applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized her rights.

7.  All requirements of law and regulations were met and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, it is determined that the type of discharge and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

8.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting her request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x_  ___x_____  ___x_____  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.



      _________x______________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100019011



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100017536



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1