RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            27 JANUARY 2004                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003090547

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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, in effect, that his Reentry (RE) Code be corrected to permit him to return to military service.  In correspondence from the applicant’s congressional representative, it was also requested that the reason for the applicant’s separation be addressed with a view towards changing the reason for separation to something less derogatory.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he sustained an injury to his knee while doing physical training during his basic combat training.  He states that he initially was unable to pass the physical fitness test (APFT) because he was ill from having been given his initial entry shots.

3.  He states that he failed a second test because he was still ill.  However, during his third APFT he states that he was pushed from behind “causing [him] to sublex [his] right knee.”  The applicant notes that he finished the test “as best [he] could” and when his knee condition was brought to the attention of his drill sergeant he “was sent on sick call….”

4.  The applicant states that he was put on crutches and sent to physical therapy but that it was ultimately suggested that he “chapter out because [he] had entered the Army before [he] was ready.”  He states that he accepted the discharge and then sought assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs.  He was told to refrain from walking on his leg as much as possible and his injury would repair itself if given time.

5.  In March (the applicant does not specify a year, but presumably he meant in March 2003) he attempted to return to military service but has been unable to do so because of his RE Code.  He notes that upon further investigation he discovered that he had received a general discharge “with a bad Re-entry code” for “failure to adapt, lack of ability, and a behavior code” rather than as a result of his injury as his counseling statement reported.

6.  The applicant maintains that he was lied to and “cheated out of basic medical care from the Army, and that his re-entry code unfairly impedes his ability to return to military service.”

7.  The applicant’s congressional representative also asserts that the reason cited on the applicant’s separation document as the basis for his discharge appears to indicate the applicant was discharged “due to bad conduct and not physical injury.”  He states that the Board should correct his record in such a way that it “will allow him to reenlist whether that means removing unwarranted references to behavioral grounds for his discharge, an upgrading of his reentry code to something higher than RE-3, or both.”

8.  The applicant provides extracts from his service medical and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered active duty on 26 February 2002 under a 4-year enlistment contract.

2.  Although the applicant’s entrance physical examination was not available to the Board, documents provided by the applicant from the VA indicate that the applicant’s entrance physical examination did not list any knee disabilities.

3.  On 18 March 2002, while undergoing fitness training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, as part of the FTC (Fitness Training Company) preparation for basic combat training, the applicant reported to medical personnel that he felt his knee pop while running.  The applicant was referred to physical therapy where it was noted he complained of right knee pain, and that he had no prior history of knee pain or any prior injury to his knee.  The medical treatment record also noted that the applicant was in his second week of fitness training and that he had failed the APFT.  The Physician noted that the applicant had some tenderness in his right knee but that he had a full range of motions, and the knee was stable.

4.  The applicant was issued a temporary 5-day profile and issued crutches.  He was told to return for a follow-up examination on 22 March 2002.

5.  On 22 March the applicant reported mild improvement.  His profile was extended “until Monday” at which time he was “cleared for all duty vs. administrative actions.”  The physician also noted that the applicant was not a candidate for PTRP (Physical Training Rehabilitation Program-a program designed to assist Soldiers injured during initial entry training who still desired to finish their training).

6.  On 25 March 2002 the applicant returned to medical authorities and complained of right knee pain with no new injury.  He was diagnosed with chronic right knee pain and recommended that his unit “pursue chapter….”  An undated statement, titled “Referral for Command Discussion” notes that the applicant’s physician recommended a “chapter for time to strengthen knee.”  The statement indicated that the applicant’s physician felt he had entered the Army too soon without sufficient physical training and believed that “chapter is best option then back in 6 months” when the applicant would have a “stronger chance of passing PT test with no further injury.”

7.  On 28 March 2002 the applicant was counseled “for Chapter 11 due to your injury.”  The individual counseling the applicant noted that his physician had recommended that he be discharged “due to the post sublex and strained mcl [Medial collateral ligament] injury to right knee” and that his doctor felt he would be “a poor candidate for PTRP.”  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the counseling document and made no comments.

8.  On 3 April 2002 the applicant was notified that his commander was initiating actions to administratively separate the applicant from active duty for “lack of ability.”  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights, including the right to consult with military or civilian legal counsel.

9.  The commander’s recommendation was approved and on 11 April 2002 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, for “entry level performance and conduct.”  His service was uncharacterized.  He had less than 2 months of active Federal service at the time of his discharge.  His RE Code was recorded as RE-3.

10.  The applicant was seen by civilian medical officials on 26 April 2002 and 
8 May 2002.  The examining physician noted that the applicant complained of a knee injury and swelling.  X-rays taken on 26 April showed “no acute bony abnormalities.”

11.  In November 2003 the applicant was granted a 10 percent disability rating by the VA for “right patellar subluxation with collateral ligament.”  The VA rating document noted that the applicant’s examination “found no ankylosis” of his right knee and that he was able to do all physical activities except long distance running.  His knee disability did not affect his employment.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, provides for the separation of Soldiers in an entry-level status (less than 180 days of creditable service) that have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention.  Specifically cited as an example, which would render an individual not qualified for retention, were those Soldiers who “cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline.”  Individuals discharged under the provisions of Chapter 11 received an “entry level performance and conduct” statement as the narrative reason for their separation and are issued an RE Code of 3.

13.  Information extracted from the Army’s Fort Jackson, South Carolina military installation site, notes that the individuals arriving at Fort Jackson who do not pass the initial physical standards for entry to Basic Combat Training are assigned to the Fitness Training Company to assess and improved the physical fitness level of newly assessed Soldiers.  The PTRP is a program designed for Soldiers who are injured during initial entry training and are unable to continue training.  In order for an injured Soldier to be assigned to the PTRP they must have strong potential for successfully completing training and either must be recommended by a physical therapist or be recommended by a health care provider for convalescent leave.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant, and his congressional representative’s contention, that the applicant’s injury to his knee and not any unfavorable conduct was the true basis for his separation is noted.  However, the evidence which is available shows that had medical personnel felt that the applicant could overcome his knee injury and successfully complete his training, he would have been assigned to a rehabilitation program designed for that purpose.

2.  Rather, the evidence shows that medical personnel, who were evaluating the applicant, concluded that he was not a good candidate for the PTRP which supports a conclusion that even without an injury to the applicant’s knee it was unlikely that he would have been able to meet the physical demands of military service.  The fact that the applicant was assigned to a FTC upon arrival at Fort Jackson, rather than being assigned to a basic combat training unit, supports this conclusion.  His contention that he was unable to pass the initial APFT because of illness associated with his initial entry shots, is not supported by any evidence in available records, or provided by the applicant.

3.  Based on the evidence which is available, it appears that separation under the provisions of Chapter 11, of Army Regulation 635-200, was the appropriate avenue to deal with the applicant’s particular situation, which was his inability to meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training.  Hence the narrative reason for his separation, and his RE Code were both appropriate, and there is no compelling evidence to change either.

4.  The applicant is advised that although his RE-3 was properly assigned; this does not mean that he is totally disqualified from returning to military service.  The disqualification upon which the RE-3 code was based may be waived for enlistment purposes.  The applicant is advised that if he desires to enlist, he should contact a local recruiter who can best advise him on his eligibility for returning to military service.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time and may process enlistment waivers for both the applicant’s RE code and his reason for separation.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__AAO __  __LE ___  __YM ___  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		__  Arthur A. Omartian____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090547	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040127	
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.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.