MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            1 February 2001                
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043110

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz 		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, that her reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to an RE code of RE-1 or a code of RE-2 to allow reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she had superficial varicose veins due to weight gain during pregnancy.  She states that she gave birth in December
1996 and in March 1997, she went to basic training before allowing her body time to adequately heal.  

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

On 18 March 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  On
21 March 1997, she was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for basic training.  Shortly after reporting to basic training, the applicant reported swelling in several places in her right lower extremities after strenuous activity.  Her symptoms were most prominent with running and marching. 

On 24 March 1997, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) determined that “a Doppler Ultrasound showed evidence of incompetency of the greater saphenous vein at the saphenofemoral junction.  There was also evidence of reversed Doppler flow ausculted over the posterior thigh cluster as well.”  The applicant reported that during her first pregnancy in 1994, she was diagnosed to have varicose veins in her right lower extremities.  An ultrasound at that time showed no evidence of deep venous thrombosis; however, it was recommended that she have surgery on the veins at the completion of her pregnancy.  However, her symptoms resolved after her first pregnancy and did not resurface until her second pregnancy in 1996.  After the delivery of her second child, her symptoms again diminished and did not resurface until she enlisted in the military. 

The EPSB found that the applicant’s incompetent veins of the lower extremities existed prior to service and determined that she was unfit for further training and duty.  

On 3 April 1997, the applicant authenticated a statement with her own signature in which she acknowledged that she understood and concurred with the EPSB’s findings that she was unqualified for retention in the military because of a physical disability that existed prior to entry into active service.  She also requested to be discharged from the Army without delay.  On the very same day, her commander recommended discharge.  

On 8 April 1997, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200.  

On 14 April 1997, she was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, with an uncharacterized discharge.  She had served 4 months and 
14 days on her 4 year enlistment obligation.  She was assigned an RE code of RE-3.

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 entry on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated.  A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition does not disqualify the soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.  The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the soldier is in an entry level status. Army regulation state that a soldier is in an entry level status if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.

Pertinent Army Regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlisting and processing into the RA and the eligibility for prior service applicant’s for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes and RA RE codes. 

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, however, the disqualification is waivable.  Local recruiting personnel have the responsibility for determining whether an individual meets the current enlistment criteria and that recruiting personnel are required to process a request for waiver.  There is no evidence that he has ever requested such a waiver.

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.  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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant was administratively discharged and assigned an RE-code of
RE-3 in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.

3.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, however, the disqualification is waivable.  Local recruiting personnel have the responsibility for determining whether an individual meets the current enlistment criteria and that recruiting personnel are required to process a request for waiver.  There is no evidence that she has ever requested such a waiver.

4.  The Board found no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification which established the basis for the applicant’s RE code.  The assigned RE code was and still is appropriate.

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

__lls____  __jea____  __bjl____  DENY APPLICATION

					
		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043110	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980706	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  Chapter 5-11	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.