MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  20 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001059201

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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, a change of the character of service of his separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Army was well aware of his disability prior to his entry into the service, yet he was allowed to sign up.

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

On 24 January 2001, he was given a military medical examination at the Houston Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), Houston, Texas, for the purpose of enlistment in the Army.  The examining doctors noted that he had bilateral testicular prostheses, with the explanation, “Testicles were undescended at birth. One testicle was removed at age 3 or 4 and second testicle was removed when the testicular prostheses were inserted at age 19.  Has been taking testosterone injections monthly since age 13.”  The examining doctor and reviewing doctor certified that the applicant was qualified for enlistment and airborne training.

The applicant entered the Delayed Entry Program on 13 February 2001, and then enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 February 2001, at the Houston MEPS.  He enlisted for airborne infantry and ranger training and military occupational specialties with an enlistment incentive cash bonus of $7,000 and the Montgomery GI Bill.

He entered basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, on or about 22 February 2001.  During his second week of training, he was given a permanent (P3) physical profile prohibiting physical training, sports, or strenuous physical activities.  His status was reviewed by an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) on 7 March 2001.  The findings by the evaluating physicians, two Medical Corps doctors, were as follows.

“After careful considerations of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the board finds that the service member was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians, the condition Existed Prior To Service (EPTS).  The member has the following medical condition and physical defect: bilateral orchiectomy (surgical removal of testicles).  Disposition: This soldier does not meet medical fitness standards for enlistment under provisions of paragraph 2-14k(1), chapter 2, AR 40-501.  EPTS: Yes.  Service aggravated: No. Soldier does meet retention standards under provisions of chapter 3, AR 40-501. It is recommended that he be separated from the military service under provisions of paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200.”

The EPSBD findings were approved by a Medical Corps colonel on 9 March 2001.  On 12 March 2001, the applicant concurred with the proceedings of the EPSBD and requested the option to be discharged from the Army without delay.  The applicant also had the option to request to be retained on active duty. His unit commander recommended discharge.  The request was approved by the discharge authority on 26 March 2001.  The applicant was so discharged on 
10 April 2001, with 1 month and 19 days active service.  He was discharged by authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  His character of service was “Uncharacterized.”

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations, Enlisted Personnel), 
chapter 5 (Separation for Convenience of the Government), paragraph 5-11, provides that soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for enlistment, may be separated.  Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty.  Such findings will result in an EPSBD.  Medical proceedings must establish that a medical condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the soldier for entry into the military service and that it does not disqualify the soldier for retention in the military service according to AR 40–501, chapter 3.  A soldier who is found after entry on active duty not to have been qualified under procurement medical fitness standards at the time of enlistment, may request to be retained on active duty subject to certain conditions.  No soldier has a right to be retained under this paragraph.  Soldiers not retained will be processed for separation.  The characterization of service will be “Uncharacterized” when the soldier is in an entry level status.  Entry level status for Regular Army soldiers is the first 180 days of continuous active duty.

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.  While the applicant did have a EPTS medical condition that would have precluded his enlistment in accordance with AR 40-501, his condition did not preclude his retention in the service.  The applicant had the option to complete his enlistment, subject to specified conditions, or request discharge.  He requested discharge while he was in an entry level status.  In accordance with 
AR 635-200, the correct characterization for discharge under these circumstances is “Uncharacterized.”  There is no error in the characterization of his discharge.  Since the applicant had the option to continue to serve or request discharge, and chose discharge, there is no injustice.

2.  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

___jp___  __rs____  ___mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059201	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHARACTERIZED	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010326	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 5-11	
DISCHARGE REASON	Failure to meet procurement med fitness stdr	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110 – Discharge Documents	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.