MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20010557705

	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. William Blakely .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 his reentry (RE) code of RE-3 be changed to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his inability to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) was due to his medical profile and the shortness of time he was allotted to recover from his medical condition prior to being administered the second APFT.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his discharge packet and a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214).

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

On 11 March 1997, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Army for 
6 years.  While still an advanced individual training student and assigned to the Student Company, United States Army Medical Equipment and Optical School (USAMEOS), United States Army Garrison (USAG), Fitzsimons, Aurora, Colorado, he twice failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), on 19 July and 20 September 1997 respectively. 

The facts and circumstances in regard to the applicant’s discharge processing are not on file.  However, he has provided a copy of discharge documents that confirm his unit commander initiated separation action against him, under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his two APFT failures.  

These documents also confirm that the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action and consulted legal counsel.  After being advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action, he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In this statement, he requested that he be retained in the Army and be given another chance to pass the APFT.  He further stated that after his initial APFT failure he was not given the recovery time authorized by the regulation to prepare for the second APFT and at the time of this second failure he was on a valid medical profile.

Two memoranda were provided by the applicant, the first, dated 21 October 1997, SUBJECT: Request for Medical Evaluation RE, which was signed by a medical doctor and stated that he had not been diagnosed with a medical condition that would preclude him from taking and passing the APFT.  The second memorandum, which was undated, stated that the applicant’s acute infection may have affected his APFT results if the test was administered around 1 October 1997.  

Copy 1 of the applicant’s separation document (DD Form 214), which he provided, confirms that on 7 November 1997, he was discharged from the Army, in the rank of private/E-1, which is the highest rank he held on active duty.  It also shows that at the time of his separation he had only completed 7 months and 
27 days of active military service and that the authority for his separation was chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 and the narrative reason was unsatisfactory performance.  In addition, based on this authority and reason for his discharge, he would have been assigned a corresponding RE-3 code. 

Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 7, physical profiling, provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  It establishes four numerical designations (1-4) that are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, 
U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and 
S-psychiatric.  A numerical designator of "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment.  Numerical designators of "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain assignment restrictions within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  The individual should receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.  A numerical designator of "4" indicates that an individual has one or more medical conditions or physical defects of such severity that performance of military duty must be drastically limited; however, it does not necessarily mean that an individual is unfit because of physical disability as defined in Army Regulation 635-40.  To make a profile serial more informative, two modifiers are used: "P" (permanent) and "T" (temporary).  The "T" modifier indicates that the condition necessitating a numerical designator "3" or "4" is considered temporary, the correction or treatment of the condition is medically advisable, and correction will usually result in a higher physical capacity.  In no case will individuals in military status carry a "T" modifier for more than 12 months without positive action being taken either to correct the defect or to effect other appropriate disposition. 

Army Regulation 350-15, chapter 7, contains guidance on physical fitness training.  It states, in pertinent part, that a member will be excused from physical training while under temporary or permanent medical limitations established by Army Regulation 40-501.  Field Manual 21-20, provides guidance on conducting the APFT and indicates that soldiers with a permanent profile will take an alternate APFT consistent with their medical limitations.  It also states, in pertinent part, that the APFT will be administered to soldiers on a temporary profile once it has expired after they have been given twice the time it was held to train but in no case more than 90 days. 
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 enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.  RE-1 applies to persons completing their terms of service who are considered fully qualified to reenter the US Army and RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. 

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his inability to pass the APFT was due to his medical profile and the shortness of time allotted to recover from his medical condition prior to being administered a second APFT but it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The available evidence confirms that both of the applicant’s APFT failures took place prior to his being diagnosed with an acute infection on 1 October 1997.  Further, there is no evidence of record and the applicant has failed to provide independent evidence that shows he was under either a temporary or permanent medical profile that would have excused him from taking either of the APFTs he failed or that would have authorized him additional training time prior to taking the second APFT.  

3.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, in view of the circumstances in this case, the Board finds the RE-3 code was appropriately assigned based on the reason for the applicant’s discharge and the basis for this assignment has not changed.  Therefore, the Board concludes there is an insufficient basis for changing it at this time. 

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

___CLA__  __CLG__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057705	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/09/11	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.