Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021085
Original file (20130021085.txt) Auto-classification: Denied


		BOARD DATE:	  22 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130021085 


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, voidance of his discharge and reinstatement to active duty.

2.  The applicant states he received several vaccinations while in-processing for basic training, including an influenza vaccine.  He then became ill with the flu virus.  He was discharged for iron-related anemia, a condition that existed prior to service (EPTS).  No rapid influenza test was performed which would have proven his red blood cell count was low due to infection from the flu virus.  He has never had or been diagnosed with such a condition and tests conducted subsequent to his discharge indicate he does not have that condition.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings, Report of Medical Assessment, military medical records, and civilian laboratory results dated subsequent to his discharge.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 January 2013 for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks and training as an armor crewman.  He was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia, to undergo one-station unit training.

2.  On 11 February 2013, an EPSBD conducted at Fort Benning determined that the applicant's laboratory results, combined with his symptoms, indicated he suffered from an iron deficiency and diagnosed him as having iron-deficiency anemia.  The EPSBD determined he did not meet medical fitness standards and his condition EPTS.  The EPSBD recommended his immediate separation from the service.

3.  On 28 February 2013, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations of the EPSBD and indicated he did not desire to remain on active duty and desired separation without delay.

4.  The EPSBD findings and recommendation were approved and he was discharged on 14 March 2013 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-11, by reason of "Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards."  He completed 2 months of active service and his service was uncharacterized.  He was assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3."

5.  The documents provided by the applicant from a civilian oncologist, dated 25 March 2013, indicate the applicant has no major ongoing problems.

6.  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 that 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.

7.  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 exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered 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.

8.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that individuals will be assigned RE codes prior to discharge or release from active duty based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment processing in the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.  Chapter 3 prescribes basic eligibility for prior-service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes.

	a.  RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their terms of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.  They are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met.

	b.  RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable.  They are ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted.  A waiting period of 2 years from separation is required before a waiver may be submitted through a local recruiting office.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was unjustly discharged for a condition that did not exist and should be reinstated to active duty has been noted and appears to lack merit.  The applicant was diagnosed with an anemia disorder barely 2 months after he enlisted that in all likelihood EPTS.

2.  The applicant was properly diagnosed by a EPSBD as having an anemia disorder that EPTS.  He concurred with the findings of the EPSBD, he never contested at the time that he did not have that condition prior to enlistment, and he requested separation without delay.

3.  In the absence of evidence to show otherwise, it appears that the applicant's administrative discharge was correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant's rights.

4.  The applicant failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that he was improperly diagnosed at the time of his EPSBD.  However, he is not precluded from applying for a waiver of his RE code at a nearby recruiting office if he is otherwise qualified and the needs of the Army at the time justify his return to service.

5.  An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service.  It merely means that the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated.  As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request to void his discharge and reinstate him to active duty.

6.  In the absence of sufficient evidence to show otherwise, there appears to be no basis to grant his 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 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)                                         AR20130021085



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130021085



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001761

    Original file (20140001761.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant's available records do not contain a copy of her LOD determination. The physical profile she was issued on 6 June 2009 shows the issuing officer determined the applicant was not able to perform any standard or alternate APFT events.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000362

    Original file (0000362.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00362 INDEX CODE: 108.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her administrative discharge be changed to a medical discharge so that she can receive benefits. The Medical Consultant indicated that there was no indication in the medical records that she ever reported these symptoms as she stated. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00633

    Original file (PD-2012-00633.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The 2003 VASRD coding and rating standards for the spine, which were in effect at the time of separation, were changed to the current §4.71a rating standards in 2004. IAW DoDI 6040.44, this Board must consider the appropriate rating for the CI’s back condition at separation based on the VASRD standards in effect at the time of separation (i.e. pre‐2004 standards). At an orthopedic evaluation 10 months prior to separation, the CI indicated his pain was exacerbated by flexion and extension.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05476

    Original file (BC 2013 05476.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge, to include the narrative reason for separation, were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Therefore, the Medical Consultant recommends the applicant submit a more current complete blood count, serum iron, iron-binding capacity, and ferritin, the result of a rectal examination to confirm absence of blood in the stool, and a statement that he has not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011313

    Original file (20090011313.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from "disability, existed prior to service (EPTS), physical evaluation board (PEB)" to "disability." The SPD code "JFM" is the correct code for Soldiers separating under Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b (physical disability existing prior to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013170

    Original file (20100013170.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel contends the applicant's request to be placed on an ADME was wrongfully disapproved and that the ADME program is available to Soldiers who incur an injury or aggravate a previous illness or disease in the LOD during duty and require medical treatment/evaluation for more than 30 days. The applicant was ordered to active duty from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 4 December 2000 for a period of 139 days. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant filed a claim for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02590

    Original file (BC-2012-02590.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02590 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Correct the Line of Duty (LOD) finding of existed prior to service (EPTS – LOD Not Applicable) for chronic asthmatic bronchitis and chronic sinusitis, to reflect in the line of duty (ILOD), in block 11 of the AFRC IMT 348, dated 24 September 2008. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01313

    Original file (PD2012 01313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sarcoidosis 2. A 10% disability rating was assigned based on the 9434 code and a“mild social and industrial impairment.”The CI appealed and both a FPEB and USAPDA affirmed the 10% disability rating.In December 2001, the VA determined that both sarcoidosis and depression had EPTS and neither had been aggravated by service. SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130012146 (PD201201313)I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013614

    Original file (20130013614.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He points out that Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1332.38 (Physical Disability Evaluation) states service members who are identified with nonwaived medical conditions or physical defects that existed prior to service (EPTS) may be administratively separated without referral into the Disability Evaluation System when the medical condition meets the following: * the medical impairment is identified prior to or within 180 days of the member’s initial entry on active duty or active...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02345

    Original file (PD-2013-02345.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The back condition and anemia, characterized as “mechanical low back pain (LBP)” and “anemia,” were the only conditions forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. A neurosurgical examination on 23 August 2004 (10 months prior to separation) showed normal spine contour and normal gait. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.