MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           23 OCTOBER 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061240

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub 		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, 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:  That his RE (reenlistment eligibility) code of “3” be changed to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was discharged for being overweight but had a “minor medical condition which prevented [him] from losing weight (hypothyroidism).”  He notes that two “exams proved that [he] has a low producing thyroid” which made it “harder” for him to lose weight.  He states that a third test showed a “near normal thyroid level” but separation procedures were already underway.  The applicant indicates that with exercise and diet he has been able to “meet weight and or body fat percentage standards” and is trying to enlist in the Marine Corps. In addition to his self-authored statement, the applicant submits a copy of a 5 January 2001 medical evaluation and a 24 January 2001 memorandum from his unit commander informing him that separation procedures were being initiated.

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

He served on Active duty with the Marine Corps between June 1994 and June 1998.  On 31 August 1998 he enlisted in the USAR (U.S. Army Reserve).  An August 1998 physical examination indicated the applicant was 70 inches tall and weighed 205 pounds.  The evaluating physician noted that the applicant’s “build” was “heavy” and although he was overweight his “BF” (body fat) level was 21.66 which was within the Army’s standard of 22 percent.

On 22 January 1999 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.

The applicant’s 5 January 2001 medical evaluation, submitted in support of his request, indicates that he was being seen by medical authorities “for follow-up on low TSH [thyroid stimulating hormone].”  The medical summary noted that the applicant’s “T3” (triiodothyronine) was normal and that he had a “mild” low TSH level.  The evaluating physician recommended the applicant repeat testing in 3 to 4 months and if the TSH level was still low “consider further testing and/or endocrine referral.”  There is no indication on the medical summary that the applicant’s “mild” low TSH level impacted on his ability to meet the Army’s weight standards.  At the time of the applicant’s 5 January 2001 medical evaluation his height was listed as 71 inches and his weight at 225.

On 24 January 2001 his unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to administratively separate the applicant for failing to meet standards established by the Army’s Weight Control Program.  The commander noted the applicant was enrolled in the unit’s weight control program in January 2000.  Between July and December 2000, the applicant “failed to make satisfactory progress in the Weight Control Program by not losing 3-8 pounds each month.”

Although not all of the documents associated with his separation action were in records available to the Board, the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he was honorably discharged on 22 February 2001 as a result of “weight control failure.”  Item 26 (Separation Code) on his DD Form 214 is “LCR” and item 27 (Reentry Code) is recorded as 3.

Army Regulation 600-9 establishes the Army’s Weight Control Program.  It states that individuals who are being considered for separation due to failure to make satisfactory progress in a weight control program will be evaluated by health care personnel to determine if there is a medical reason for lack of weight loss.

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 prescribed basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

RE-3 applies to persons who were not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable.  

Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DOD and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data.  It notes that “LCR” is the appropriate SPD code for individuals separated for failing to meet Army weight standards.

A “cross-reference” chart, provided by officials from the separations branch at the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, confirms that “RE-3” is the appropriate RE code for individuals who receive an SPD code of LCR.

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.  Although documents associated with the applicant’s separation were not in records available to the Board the applicant was assigned a reentry code in accordance with appropriate regulations.  The Board notes that the reentry code was assigned based on the fact that the applicant was not qualified for continuous service at the time of his separation.  The applicant’s RE code is appropriate considering the basis for his separation.
2.  The Board notes, however, that he may be eligible to apply for a waiver for enlistment, and that he should visit his nearest military recruiting office for further information.

3.  The applicant’s contention that his RE code should be changed because of his belief that his inability to comply with the Army’s weight standards was related to his “minor medical condition” is without foundation.  While the applicant’s entire separation proceedings were not available to the Board, his 5 January 2001 medical evaluation occurred before his 24 January 2001 notification of separation action.  The timing of the evaluation and notification memorandum tends to support a conclusion that the applicant’s commander was complying with the provisions of Army Regulation 600-9 in determining if the applicant’s inability to meet Army weight standards was related to a medical condition.  The 
5 January 2001 evaluation makes no such conclusion.

4.  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 that requirement.

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

__SLP __  __ALR        __TEO__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061240	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011023	
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.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.