RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           11 MARCH 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003093891

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to change his reentry code on his        DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) so that he can reenlist. 

2.  The applicant states that he was wrongfully discharged.  He does not have flat feet.  At the time he was having an allergic reaction from medication that gave him the flu.  He states that after taking the medication, he started getting pain and swelling in his feet.  He went on sick call and a physician's assistant (PA) told him he had flat feet; however, he informed the PA that he had never had problems with his feet.  He continued to have pain in his feet and could hardly walk.  He also had a rash and a fever.  He again saw the PA, who told him that he was going to be discharged because of an EPTS (existed prior to service) condition.  He argued to no avail.  Again examined, he was informed that he was having a bad allergic reaction.  He went to see the PA who informed him, in effect, that his discharge for an EPTS condition would be cancelled; however, an officer examined him and informed him that he had flat feet and could not be in the infantry, that he could not get his specialty changed, and that he would be discharged.  He tried to fight his discharge, but no one would listen to him.  After his discharge, he had a physical examination at a Military Entrance Processing Station and passed it.  He was seen by an orthopedic doctor who informed him that he did not have flat feet.  Documentation from a VA hospital indicates that his feet are fine.  His own doctor stated that there was nothing wrong with his feet.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, an 18 September 2001 medical record, a copy of a 12 September 2001 treatment record, a copy of a    26 October 2001 statement from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), a copy of 26 October 2001 VA medical record, and a 13 March 2002 statement from a podiatrist. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2002068758, on   2 July 2002.

2.  Other than the 13 March 2002 statement from the podiatrist in East Patchogue, New York, the evidence that the applicant submits was available for review by the 2 July 2002 Board.  That podiatrist stated that an examination and x-rays were consistent with flexible pes planus, mild hallux abducto valgus (bunion) and splay foot (wide foot on weight bearing).  Neurovascular status was intact.  Range of motion, strength testing and gait maneuvers did not elicit any detectable symptoms.  The doctor stated that the applicant was asymptomatic and should remain so given good fitting foot gear.  He should be able to participate in all Army military duties/activities. 

3.  Also, on 23 July 2003 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.  In so doing, that Board noted, that if the applicant desired to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  The board stated that those individuals could best advise him as to the needs of the Army and were required to process waivers of reentry codes. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the above-mentioned statement from the podiatrist in New York, competent medical personnel determined in October 2001 that he did not meet procurement medical fitness standards and should be discharged because of his EPTS condition.  The applicant himself agreed.

2.  Consequently, as indicated in the previous Board case, the applicant was discharged because of his EPTS condition.  The discharge was warranted and his DD Form 214 annotated with a reentry code of "3" in accordance with the provisions of the governing regulation.  That Board clearly stated, as did the      23 July 2003 ADRB, that the applicant's reentry code was waivable.  Should the applicant desire to reenlist, as he states, then the advice offered by the ADRB is relevant.      

3.  The applicant's reentry code is correct. He has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS __  __MMB__  __PHM__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR202068758, dated 2 July 2002.

		____ John N. Slone______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003093891	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040311	
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.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.