MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            28 October 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003088692

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. Troup		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 Narrative Reason and Authority for separation be changed.  He also requests that he and his legal counsel be afforded an opportunity to appear at a hearing before the Board at no expense to the Government.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was inequitable because it was due to failure to maintain weight/body fat due to substandard performance.  He states that his medical records show that he became severely ill and was placed on a profile for 10 days while he was attending the Officer Advanced Course.  He further states that after he became ill he began to experience chronic fatigue, syncope and exercise intolerance, which almost completely curtailed his ability to participate in unit and individual Army physical fitness activities.  

He goes on to state that while he was on active duty the doctors briefly attempted to diagnose his condition; however, he was not afforded the opportunity to appear before a medical board.  He states that if he was having symptoms that impacted on his fitness for duty, he should have been kept on active duty, on profile, while a diagnosis and treatment were instituted and been qualified as being fit to return to duty.  He states that in the alternative, he should have been discharged for medical reasons as a doctor at the Veterans Administration (VA) diagnosed him with severe hypoglycemia only 2 months after his discharge.  He states that after living with his condition untreated for 3 years, he has now been diagnosed as having type II diabetes, and that the doctor who is currently treating his condition concurs that his symptoms lead to weight gain and failure to maintain a normal body fat.  

He states that the Narrative Reason and Authority for his discharge as currently reflected in his records will possibly hinder him from obtaining employment where he desires to be employed.  He concludes by stating that he was improperly diagnosed while on active and that if his condition were properly diagnosed, it is possible that he could have been successfully treated and remained.  He contends that his case should be referred to a medical board and that his records should be changed to show that he was discharged for medical reasons.

In support of his application, he submits a copy of glucose tolerance test dated 10 May 1999; a laboratory report from the VA dated 7 May 1999; a medical report from Bay East Endocrinology Associates – Easton; a VA Rating Decision dated 5 March 2000; a copy of his physical profile dated 1 December 1998; and copies of his Army medical records.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show were unavailable for review.  Information herein was obtained from documentation submitted with his application to this Board.

He was serving in the Army in the rank and pay grade of Captain (03) in the military occupation specialty of veterinary service officer.  

The available Army medical records show that the applicant was tested and treated by physicians on numerous occasions after experiencing symptoms to include fatigue, shakes, sweats, light-headedness and syncope.  He was also being seen by physicians for exceeding the maximum body fat standards.  He underwent tests and his tests were negative for diabetes.  On 1 December 1998, he was placed on a physical profile, which included no push-ups, no sit-ups, no running or other abdominal exercises.  He was placed on desk duty for 1 month because he was undergoing evaluation for a possible heart disease.  The records are unclear as to his final diagnosis.

On 9 March 1999, he was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, chapter 4, based on substandard performance, as a result of his failure to meet weight/body fat standards.  He had completed 3 years, 7 months and 1 day of total active service.

In a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision, dated 3 May 2000, the applicant was denied service connection for vasovagal syncope and for hypoglycemic episode and/or diabetes mellitus.

The applicant submitted an appeal to the decision rendered by the DVA on 7 October 2002.  His appeal was approved and on 21 April 2001, he was granted 10 percent service connection for reactive hypoglycemia and diabetes mellitus, Type II.  On 27 December 2002, the DVA increased the percentage of his condition from 10 percent to 20 percent.

On 27 December 2002, the applicant was evaluated by the Bay East Endocrinology Associates – Easton and has been diagnosed with diabetes based on at least two fasting glucose levels over 126.  The attending physician indicated that his symptoms of hypoglycemia and weight gain are related to hyperinsulinemic response to a glycemic load and can certainly explain his progressive weight gain.

Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes the officer transfers from active duty to the Reserve Component and discharge functions for all officers on active duty for 30 days or more.  Chapter 4-2A provides the tasks, rules, and steps for eliminating officers in the Active Army for 

substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interests of national security.  It provides, in pertinent part, that failure to achieve satisfactory progress after enrollment in the Army weight control program or failure to maintain the weight/body fat standards established under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-9 after removal from an established weight control program will result in elimination action being initiated.

Chapter 4-24A(1) of the same regulation provides, in pertinent part, that an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case, elect to submit a resignation in lieu of elimination.

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.  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.

2.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, there is no evidence in the available records nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support his contention that the symptoms that he was experiencing while he was in the Army were severe enough to warrant a medical board.  The Army medical records that he submitted along with his application shows that while he was on active duty, his tests for diabetes were negative.  However, he was being seen by Army physicians for failing to meet Army weight/body fat standards and according to his DD Form 214, he elected to submit a resignation in lieu of elimination.

3.  The award of VA compensation does not mandate disability retirement or separation from the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, may make a determination that a medical condition warrants compensation.  The VA is not required to determine fitness for duty at the time of separation.  The Army must find a member physically unfit before he can be medically retired or separated and a review of the available records fails to show that he was ever found to be physical unfit.

4.  The Board also notes the evaluation completed by the Bay East Endocrinology Associates – Easton.  However, that evaluation is insufficient documentation to conclude that the Army erred prior to or at the time of his release from active duty.   According to the available records, he submitted his 

resignation in accordance with the applicable regulation and at that time he had failed to meet weight/body fat standards.  The Board must presume regularity in this case, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct.

5.  Personal appearances before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records are by invitation of the Board only, and are not automatically scheduled at the applicant’s request.  Personal appearances are scheduled only when the Board determines a personal appearance hearing is necessary.

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

___mt __  ____lds__  __rjw____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088692	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/10/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19990309	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 600-8-24/ BODY FAT STANDARDS	
DISCHARGE REASON	513/ SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000/SEPARATION DOCUMENT	
2.   191	110.0200/REASON AND AUTHORITY	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.