MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:             9 February 2000                
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026043

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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:  That his reduction in rank be voided and that he be given the money that would become due as a result of that correction.  He also requests that his discharge be corrected to a medical retirement, rated 100 percent disabled.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had a rare disease while he was on active duty, a disease which caused low glucose levels and the fatigue and sleep disorder which are caused by that condition.  Because of his fatigue he was unjustly reduced in rank and forced out of the Army.  His disease was misdiagnosed in September 1993 by the Army.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel reiterates the applicant’s request and contentions and asks for the Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 June 1992, was promoted to pay grade 
E-4, and reenlisted for 4 years on 8 March 1995.

On 24 May 1995 he was reduced from pay grade E-4 to E-3.

On 20 June 1995 he was honorably discharged due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Army Review Boards (ARBA) Medical Advisor who stated that the condition for which the applicant was diagnosed in 1998, hypopituitarism, existed prior to service (EPTS) which was not caused nor aggravated by military service.  The medical advisor also stated that the applicant’s glucose level was mildly decreased while he was on active duty, but remained consistent.  Such mild decrease in glucose levels are treated with oral sugar replacement, not with replacement of the missing hormone.  The medical advisor adds that in view of these considerations and in consideration of the fact that his medical condition is not considered boardable in accordance with the Army regulation governing medical fitness standards, there is no medical reason to grant his request.

The applicant was furnished a copy of this advisory opinion and submitted a rebuttal.  In that rebuttal he contests the statement that his medical condition was EPTS, stating that he never suffered from any of the symptoms before he was on active duty.  He then contests the statement that his glucose level was mildly depressed and could have been treated by eating, stating that his blood work was always done after a meal.  And lastly he contests the fact that his medical condition is specifically exempt from medical board consideration, calling the regulation “quite biased”, questioning how his medical condition could be considered medically disqualifying for induction but not for retention.  He concludes that an error was made in the writing of the regulation and has written a letter to the Army Surgeon General informing him of that error.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition. 

Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent.

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

1.  The bottom line on this case is that the applicant’s hypopituitarism is not considered medically disqualifying for retention.  Absent a condition that is medically disqualifying, he was not eligible, by law, to be medically retired.

2.  There does not appear to be an error in the contents of the Army regulation governing medical fitness standards.  By necessity, many conditions which are medically disqualifying for entry into the military are not disqualifying for retention.  This is a logical separation of fitness standards.  An 18 year old initial enlistee who must endure the physical and emotional stress of basic combat training, advanced skill training and possibly other combat skill training, such as Airborne or Ranger, must be in better physical condition than a career soldier who holds a higher grade.

3.  In view of the preceding conclusions, the applicant’s argument about the EPTS nature of his medical condition is a moot point.  However, he should be aware that a medical condition is also considered to be EPTS if it is medically accepted to be congenital (it existed at birth).  While the symptoms of a congenital condition may manifest themselves for the first time while a soldier is on active duty, the fact remains he or she had the condition from birth.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting either of the applicant's requests.

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

__rvo____  _dsj ____  __cjs____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026043	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000209	
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.	108.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.