IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  2 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120022007 


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 her discharge be upgraded and the narrative reason for separation be changed to a more favorable reason. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her narrative reason for separation states she was not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment; however, she did not start having medical problems until the end of active duty training.  She had no medical problems when she joined the military.  She believes her discharge was unjust and should be upgraded to a move favorable characterization of service.  

3.  The applicant provides a table of contents listing her enclosures. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard (MDARNG) on   7 October 2010 for a period of 8 years.  On 3 October 2011, she was ordered to report to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri to undergo basic training and then to Fort Lee, Virginia to undergo advanced individual training.

2.  On 6 December 2011, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) determined the applicant’s seizure disorder existed prior to service and she did not meet medical procurement standards.  The applicant disagreed with the findings of the EPSB and elected not to submit a statement in her behalf.

3.  On 1 February 2012, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-11, due to failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.

4.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation on     6 March 2012 and directed that her service be uncharacterized.

5.  Accordingly, on 13 March 2012, she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, due to failed medical/physical/ procurement standards.  She had served 5 months and 11 days of active service and her service was uncharacterized.

6.  On 13 April 2012, she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge and on 26 September 2012 the ADRB determined that her discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny her request. 

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 provides the criteria for the separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment.  It states that medical proceedings must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authorities within 
6 months of initial active duty training which would have temporarily or permanently disqualified the member for entry into military service had it been detected at the time of enlistment.  While an honorable or general discharge may be issued when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty, personnel who are in an entry-level status (ELS) will receive “Uncharacterized” service.  An honorable discharge is rarely ever granted during the ELS period, which comprises the first 180 days of continuous active service or the first 180 days of continuous active service after a break in service of more than 92 days.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  It states that according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions that exist when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered the military service.  Examples are congenital malformations and hereditary conditions or similar 


conditions in which medical authorities are in such consistent and universal agreement as to their cause and time of origin that no additional confirmation is needed to support the conclusion that they existed prior to military service.  Likewise, manifestation of lesions or symptoms of chronic disease from date of entry on active military service (or so close to that date of entry that the disease could not have started in so short a period) will be accepted as proof that the disease existed prior to entrance into active military service.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that her diagnosis was incorrect, that her condition was aggravated by military service, and that she should have been medically discharged have been noted.

2.  The applicant’s administrative discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

3.  Based on the available evidence, the applicant had an unqualifying condition that existed prior to service.  With no evidence of any trauma occurring during her short period of military service that may have triggered her seizure disorder, it appears to have been a reasonable medical determination that her condition existed prior to her entry on active duty.  Accordingly, she was properly discharged after undergoing the required medical examinations; therefore, there is no basis to grant her a medical discharge for a condition she appears to have had when she enlisted. 

4.  In the absence of evidence to show that an error or injustice existed in her case, there appears to be no basis to grant 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)                                         AR20120022007



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120022007



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1