MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           15 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047354

	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	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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 discharge due to weight control failure be corrected to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  His elevated glucose levels and his weight gain were precursors of diabetes.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 1979, was awarded the military occupational specialty of mobile subscriber equipment transmission system operator, and was promoted to pay grade E-6.

On 30 June 1993 the applicant was determined to exceed the maximum allowable body fat standards.  The applicant, who is 69 ½ inches tall, weighed 235 pounds at that time which was 56 pounds over the screening weight table.  The applicant was then examined by military medical personnel who determined that his overweight condition was not the result of any medical problem and that he should be entered into the Army Weight Control Program (AWCP).

The applicant was weighed-in monthly and was consistently determined to exceed both the screening weight table and the maximum allowable percentage of body fat.  He was counseled on several occasions concerning his failure to lose weight and of the possibility that he would be involuntarily separated from the Army if he did not lose weight.

On 31 January 1994 the applicant took a final-type physical examination.  While the applicant checked the “yes” blocks in “Have you ever had or have you now” for 24 medical conditions, the examining physician determined that he was medically qualified for separation.  However, the physician did give the applicant physical profile limitations for hypertension and his knees.  The applicant weighed 268.8 pounds at the time he took the physical examination.

On 24 February 1994 the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his involuntary separation due to AWCP failure, and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation.  The applicant waived all of his rights, including his right to have a board of officers consider his case.

The applicant’s commander’s recommendation was approved and the applicant was honorably discharged on 14 March 1994.

Army Regulation 600-9, paragraph 5 states that “The Army traditionally has fostered a military appearance which is neat and trim.  Further, an essential function of day-to-day effectiveness and combat readiness of the Army is that all personnel are healthy and physically fit.  Self-discipline to maintain proper weight distribution and high standards of appearance are essential to every individual in the Army.”  Paragraph 21 specified that initiation of separation action “will be followed unless a medical reason is found to preclude the loss of weight or there is other good cause to justify additional time in the weight control program.”

Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, contains the medical standards for retention in the Army.  Paragraph 3-11 of this regulation states that soldiers are medically disqualified for retention who are diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus which is proven to require hypoglycemic drugs in addition to restrictive diet for control.

Army Regulation 635-40, Appendix B, outlines the Army’s rating policy for selected medical conditions.  Paragraph B-98 of this regulation states “With adequate compliance, many diabetics are fit with minimum profile 
restrictions . . . If unfitness derives, in part, from non-compliance with prescribed treatment, including diet and weight control, do not rate higher than the disease warrants when it is under prescribed treatment.”

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor.  The ARBA Medical Advisor stated that the applicant had only one test which showed an elevated glucose level, and that test was noted to be taken in the afternoon, which would indicate that it was not a fasting blood test.  Subsequent serum glucose and urine glucose results were noted to be within normal limits.  The ARBA Medical Advisor stated that it is the opinion of that office that evidence of diabetes mellitus did not exist while the applicant was on active duty.

The applicant was furnished a copy of the advisory opinion and submitted two rebuttals.  In those rebuttals he stated that the time of day the blood was drawn should not be used to discount the validity of the elevated glucose levels of the specimen drawn.  If the physician had conducted further tests on him as a result of the specimen’s elevated glucose level, in all likelihood he would have been diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus.

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, it is concluded:

1.  It would appear that the applicant is basing his claim for medical retirement on a single elevated glucose reading, and the fact that he gained weight.  The Board does not accept those contentions.  The applicant had subsequent glucose readings which were within normal limits, and there is no evidence that he was unable to lose weight because of a diabetic condition.

2.  As such, the applicant’s separation for AWCP failure was appropriate with no indication that his rights were violated in any way.  The Board notes that the applicant had gained 33.8 pounds from the date he was entered into the AWCP, making him 89.8 pounds over the screening weight table for his height and weight when he took his separation physical examination.  The Board also notes that the applicant waived all of his rights in conjunction with his separation, including a board of officers.

3.  While not germane to this case since there is no evidence that the applicant should have been diagnosed as being diabetic, it should be mentioned that even if the applicant had been diabetic while he was on active duty it more than likely would not have been considered medically disqualifying or physically unfitting.  In other words, if the applicant would have been diagnosed as being diabetic, it would not have altered the type of separation he received.

4.  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

___fne   _  ___mhm_  ___mkp__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047354	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010215	
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.