MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:           2 October 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003089793

	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	
	Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected by changing her uncharacterized discharge to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she believes that the reason for her "discharge/separation" is incorrect and that she was denied medical assistance from the Veterans Administration Medical Center.  She continues that she did not understand the terms of her separation because she was "a private, nervous" and that the meeting with her Company Commander was a "sign here" meeting. 

In support of this application, the applicant provided a letter from her primary care physician and a copy of her DD Form 214.

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

The applicant enlisted in a Delayed Entry Program in the United States Army Reserve on 8 November 2002 for a period of eight years.  She was discharged from the Delayed Entry Program and entered Active Duty on 27 February 2003.

On 12 March 2003, the applicant was presented to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD).  This MEBD found that she had chronic chest pain, that she was medically unfit for duty, and that her condition existed prior to service.

On 12 March 2003, the applicant signed block 24 (I have been informed of the approved findings and recommendation of the board) of the DA Form 3847 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings) and placed her initials on the first block (I agree with the board's findings and recommendations).

In a 12 March 2003 memorandum, the applicant requested discharge for physical disability based on the findings of MEBD and stated that she was aware that the MEBD considered her unqualified for retention for military service because of a physical disability that was found to have existed prior to her entry into active service.  The applicant also stated that she was aware that the MEBD found that the disability was neither incident to nor aggravated by her military service.

In addition, the 12 March 2003 memorandum states that the applicant elected not to exercise her right to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and that she understood that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would determine entitlement to VA benefits. 

In a 13 March 2003 memorandum, the applicant's company commander was notified that the MEBD determined that the applicant was medically unfit for retention in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 and that the disqualifying condition existed prior to service.
In a 14 March 2003 memorandum, the applicant's company commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation based on chronic chest pain, a condition that existed prior to service.

The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that she was discharged on 28 March 2003 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5.

Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of the applicant's DD Form 214 contains the entry "Disability, Existed Prior to Service- Medical Board."

Item 24 (Character of Service) of the applicant's DD Form 214 contains the entry "uncharacterized."

The applicant's physician states in a 2 April 2003 letter that the applicant has been his patient since 17 January 2002 and that she has never complained of chest pain or breathing problems.  He continues that the applicant was seen in his office on 2 April 2003, complaining of chest pain that started during her basic training in the Army.

Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5, provides, in pertinent part, for separation of enlisted soldiers for non-service aggravated EPTS conditions when the soldier requests waiver of PEB evaluation.  This chapter is applicable to enlisted soldiers on active duty for more than 30 days.  The case must meet the following conditions:  (1) soldier is eligible for referral into the disability system; (2) the soldier does not meet medical retention standards as determined by the MEDBD; (3) the disqualifying defect or condition existed prior to entry on current period of duty and has not been aggravated by such duty; (4) the soldier is mentally competent; (5) knowledge of information about his or her medical conditions would not be harmful to the soldier’s well being; (6) further hospitalization or institutional care is not required; (7) after being advised of the right to a full and fair hearing, the soldier still desires to waive PEB action; and (8) soldier has been advised that a PEB evaluation is required for receipt of Army disability benefits, but waiver of the PEB will not prevent applying for VA benefits.  Unless otherwise indicated, the soldier will be separated with an honorable or general discharge.  If the soldier is in an entry level status at the time of processing, service will be uncharacterized.

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 noted the applicant's contention that the reason for discharge was inaccurate and that she should have received a medical discharge.  

2.  The Board noted that appropriate Army medical officials determined that the applicant was medically unfit for duty and that her condition existed prior to service.  Therefore, the Board determined that the applicant's separation was appropriate and in accordance with applicable regulations. 

3.  The Board also noted that the applicant signed the Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings acknowledging that she understood and agreed with the findings by the MEBD that she was medically unfit for service and that her condition existed prior to service.

4.  Based on the foregoing, the Board determined that the applicant was properly discharged, particularly since her condition existed prior to her enlistment. 

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

___KAN _  __LE____  ___JTM_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089793	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
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.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.