MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 May 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003085096

	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. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A> Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  Reconsideration of the decision by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2002071144 on 25 April 2002 not to expunge his 1 February 1992 Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) failure.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is providing additional evidence and arguments for consideration by the ABCMR.  In support of his request for reconsideration, he provided a two-page letter presenting his new evidence and arguments, five pages from Field Manual 21-20 (Physical Fitness Training), three pages of a 13 April 1992 Medical Evaluation Board and a DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard).

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the ABCMR's consideration of Docket Number AR2002071144 on 25 April 2002.  

In Docket Number AR2002071144, the Board considered the applicant's request to remove his 1 February 1992 APFT failure from his records.  The applicant's contention was that, at the time of the APFT, he was under medical care for a condition which eventually led to his separation from the service.  

The new argument presented by the applicant is that a DA Form 705 shows he "was on profile" during the 21 August 1991 Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and, based on Field Manual 21-20, he should have been placed in a individual special program of physical fitness training.  He contends that, since he was not placed in a special physical fitness program, he was not able to prepare properly for the 1 February 1992 APFT which he failed.  

The applicant also argues that he should have been placed in a special physical fitness training program when he failed the 21 August 1991 APFT.  

The applicant also argues that his Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary shows significant limitations.  He then cites from Field Manual 21-20 that soldiers "are not tested when fatigued or ill" as proof that he should not have been given an APFT.

Finally the applicant contends that the APFT given by his unit were improperly administered during his tenure in the unit.  He states that he wore glasses and the Field Manual 21-20 states that soldiers should not wear glasses during the push-up event.  He argues that at no time did any officer or noncommissioned officer instruct him that glasses were optional or not to be worn.

The new evidence and arguments present by the applicant will be considered by the ABCMR.  

The DA Form 705 presented by the applicant with his request for reconsideration was in the records considered by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2002071144 on 25 April 2002.  This record shows that the applicant was profiled at the time of this 21 August 1991 APFT.  This record also shows that the applicant failed the APFT administered on 1 February 1992 because he did not achieve the required 60 points in the push-up event.

The applicant's records contain a Standard Form 513 (Consultation Sheet), dated 19 August 1991.  Under Consultation Report, this form contains the entry, "Physical Exam Normal Findings." 

The applicant's records also contain a Standard Form 513, dated 21 August 1991, 1445 [2:45 PM], which shows the applicant was evaluated for benign familial tremor.  

The applicant's DA Form 705 shows that he was profiled on 21 August 1991: however, there is no copy of this profile in his service personnel records.  The applicant's medical records are not among the records provided to the ABCMR.

The applicant's records contain a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 23 March 1992, which shows that the applicant suffered from "Familial Essential Tremor" and "Common migraine headaches."  The physical profile awarded was "P3"-1-1-1-1-1."  The profile limited the applicant from any duty assignment requiring skillful hand control and provided for "rest when experiencing severe headaches.  Item 7 (Functional Activities) of the DA Form 3449 indicated under Physical Fitness Test that the applicant would participate in the two-mile run, the push-up and the sit-up events.

Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) 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.  Four numerical designations (1-4) 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.  Numerical designator "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 "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  The individual should receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.  Numerical designator "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.  The numerical designator "4" does not necessarily mean that the 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.

Page 1-11 of Field Manual 21-20 describes special programs.  In pertinent part, this Field Manual points out that at least three groups of soldiers need special physical training programs:  1) Those who fail the APFT and do not have medical profiles;  2) Those who are overweight/overfat according to Army Regulation 600-9;  3)  Those who have either permanent or temporary profiles.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.

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 considered the applicant's contention regarding placement in a special physical training program in order to prepare for the 1 February 1992 APFT.

2.  The Board noted the entry on the applicant's DA Form 705 which shows that he was profiled on 21 August 1991.  However, there is no record of this profile in the applicant's records; therefore, there is no indication of the restrictions placed on the applicant's physical activities or when the applicant's profile ended.  

3.  The Board noted the applicant's contention that, since he was not placed in a special physical fitness program, he was not able to prepare properly for the 1 February APFT which he failed.  The Board noted that, as of the date of his profile or 21 August 1991 when he failed the APFT, the applicant could have 

been placed in an individual special program of physical fitness training.  However, in the absence of a valid profile or physical limitations imposed by competent medical authority, the Board is unable to determine whether or not the applicant's contention has merit.  

4.  The Board noted the applicant's statement that Field Manual 21-20 states that injured or ill soldiers should not take the APFT and his contention that his medical condition should have, in effect, exempted him from taking the APFT.  However, the applicant has failed to present evidence of record which proves that competent medical authority determined he was sufficiently ill or injured to warrant prohibiting participation in the APFT.  

5.  Furthermore, in regard to the applicant's contention that he was ill and should not have taken the APFT, the Board also noted that the Physical Profile, dated 23 March 1992, specifically authorized participation in the two-mile run, the push-up and the sit-up events of the APFT.  These are the same events graded on the applicant's APFT scorecard.  

6.  Additionally, in regard to the applicant's contention that he was ill and should not have taken the APFT, the profiling officer for the 23 March 1992 Physical Profile who awarded the applicant a "Permanent 3" profile under " P-physical capacity or stamina" was the same Army medical officer who was treating the applicant for familial tremor and migraine headaches.  The profiling officer was also the same Army medical officer who prepared the Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary leading to the applicant's referral to a Physical Evaluation Board and his separation by reason of disability with entitlement to disability severance pay on 28 July 1992.  Certainly, the applicant's attending military physician and profiling officer would not have permitted his patient to participate in the APFT if his medical condition and/or Physical Profile dictated otherwise.

7.  Finally the Board noted the applicant's contention that the APFTs given by his unit were improperly administered during his tenure in the unit, specifically that, at no time, did any officer or noncommissioned officer instruct him that glasses were optional or not to be worn as stated on page 14-13 of Field Manual 21-20.  The Board determined that this contention is without merit.  The Board found that the applicant presented no evidence that APFT's were improperly conducted by his chain of command.  Additionally, the applicant participated in several APFTs before the failure on 1 February 1992; therefore, he had ample time to raise this issue prior to his APFT failure.  The Board also determined that whether or not the applicant wore glasses during the APFT had no bearing on the applicant's APFT failure.  Finally, the Board concluded that whether or not the applicant wore glasses during the APFT was not a basis for expunging the 1 February 1992 APFT failure.

8.  Based on the foregoing, the overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse the decision of the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2002071144 on 25 April 2002.  

9.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis to for granting the applicant's request to expunge the 1 February 1992 APFT failure from his records.

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

__RWA__  __TAP__  __AAO__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085096	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030515	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	MR CHUN	
ISSUES         1.	134.0000.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.