MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF

		BOARD DATE:           6 November 2003                    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003088497

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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 the narrative reason for his separation and his reentry (RE) code be changed.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had no prior history of Asthma and there are no current clinical, psychological, or physical conditions that would support the Army’s clinical findings that led to his discharge.  

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

On 10 March 1992, he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty.  

On 24 April 1992, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened at Ireland Army Community Hospital, Fort Knox, Kentucky, to evaluate the applicant.  The EPSBD Proceedings (DA Form 4707) contained a recommendation that the applicant not be retained in service based on his diagnosed medical conditions of Asthma, Allergic Rhinitis, and Exercise Induced Bronchospasm.  The medical approving authority approved the findings and recommendations of the EPSBD on the same date.  

On 28 April 1992, the applicant concurred with the EPSBD Proceedings and requested to be discharged from the Army without delay in Item 21 (Action by Service Member) of the DA Form 4707.  This portion of the EPSBD Proceedings also provided for the applicant to disagree with the proceedings or to request retention on active duty if he so desired.  

The unit commander recommended that the applicant be separated based on the EPSBD results in Item 25 (Action by Unit Commander) of the DA Form 4707.  On 4 May 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation in Item 29 (Action by Discharge Authority) of the DA Form 4707.  On 7 May 1992, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms that he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 
5-11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  It also shows that at the time of his separation, he had completed a total of only 1 month and 28 days of active military service.  As a result, his service was uncharacterized.  

The DD Form 214 also shows that based on the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge, he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JFT and a corresponding RE-3 code.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 provides the policy for separation of personnel who do not meet procurement medical fitness standards.  Such conditions must be discovered during the first six months of active duty, and such findings will result in an EPSBD.

The separation regulation further states that medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by an appropriate military medical authority within six months of the soldier's initial entrance on active duty and that this condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the soldier for entry on active duty.  It also states that a soldier may request to be retained on active duty if it is found that he did not qualify for enlistment under medical procurement standards after his entry on active duty.

Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  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, RE-3 applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation but the disqualification is waivable, and RE-4 applies to persons who have a nonwaivable disqualification.  

Table 4-1 of Army Regulation 601-210 provides a list of all waivable moral and administrative disqualifications.  It confirms that those individuals who separated from any component of the Army for medical reasons, to include failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards are disqualified from reenlistment; however, this disqualification is waivable. 

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and
the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table used in conjunction with this regulation establishes RE-3 as the appropriate code to assign members separated for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  

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 applicant’s claim that he had no prior history of Asthma and there are no current clinical, psychological, or physical conditions that would support the Army’s clinical findings were carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished only after he was evaluated by an EPSBD and he concurred with the findings and recommendations of this properly constituted medical board.  

2.  The evidence further confirms that although he had the option to disagree with the EPSBD findings and recommendations and/or to request retention on active duty subsequent to his concurrence with the EPSBD separation recommendation, he did neither and instead requested immediate discharge from the Army.  

3.  By regulation, the RE-3 code is the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 
635-200, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  As a result, the RE-3 code assigned the applicant at discharge was and still is appropriate based on the authority and reason for his separation.  

4.  The applicant is advised that although it has been determined that his 
RE-3 code was properly assigned, this does not mean that he is totally disqualified from reenlistment.  Under existing Army policy, the applicant’s disqualification may be waived for reenlistment.  The applicant is advised that if he desires to reenlist, he should contact a local recruiter who can best advise him on his eligibility for reenlistment.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time and may process reenlistment waivers for RE codes.  

5.  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 this requirement.

6.  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

__MB__  __SK__  __RJW__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088497	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/11/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/05/07 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	EPTS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  4	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.