MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            4 August 1999     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018585

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  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.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, disability retirement or separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was found qualified to enter active duty in spite of problems with his feet and that ultimately his foot condition was aggravated by his military service.  He notes he should not have been “exposed to continuous rigorous exercise after the condition was reported to the chain of command."

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were not available to the Board and as such information contained here in was reconstructed from documents provided by the applicant.

The applicant underwent a physical examination for the purpose of enlisting in the Army in January 1997.  The examination noted the applicant suffered from “mild pes planus” [flatfeet] but was found medically qualified for enlistment.

He entered active duty on 19 August 1997 and by 26 September 1997 had been discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11 with an uncharacterized entry-level separation.  At the time of his separation he had 1 month and 8 days of active Federal service.

An undated “medical 200 board” notes the applicant, in his second week of training, complained of “painful bilateral arches” which increased with prolonged standing and weight bearing activities such as running, jumping, or marching.”  The evaluating physician indicated the applicant had a two-year history of foot pain and that it had not responded to “conservative treatment” by either civilian authorities or at the military treatment facility.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-3, provides 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.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary, congenital and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnosed or should have been diagnosed.

Army Regulation 635-40 also provides that individuals who are unfit by reason of physical disability neither incurred nor aggravated during any period of service will be separated without entitlement to benefits.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.  Paragraph 5-11 provides for the early separation (within the first six months) of those individuals who were not qualified under procurement medical standards, who manifested symptoms of medical problems that would have made them not qualified under procurement medical standards or who became not qualified prior to entry.  Although a soldier in such circumstance has a right to request retention, an individual has no right to be retained.  The retention or separation decision is within the cognizance of the appropriate discharge authority.  Except in certain extraordinary cases, uncharacterized entry-level separation is mandatory for all individuals who are in an entry-level status (within the first 180 of active duty) at the time separation processing is commenced.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant was diagnosed, within two weeks of his entry on active duty, with a condition which, had it manifested itself prior to his enlistment would have precluded his enlistment.  The fact that the rigors of military service resulted in the manifestation of his foot condition is not evidence that the condition was incurred, or aggravated by such service and as such was not a basis for disability separation or retirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The contention of the applicant that he was forced to continue “rigorous exercise after the condition was reported to the chain of command” is not supported by any evidence submitted with the application.

4.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___fkm__  __inw___  ___gdp__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018585	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990804	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 108.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.