MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 March 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031189

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 his discharge for a physical disability that existed prior to entry on active duty (EPTS) be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he crushed his left ankle when he fell out of a vehicle.  He was sent home for convalescent leave, then he was given a direct order to sign for his EPTS discharge or go to jail.   He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 April 1982.  

The available military medical records contain only two blank forms.

In October 1982, the applicant was examined for a complaint of painful feet.  He was diagnosed with bilateral cavovarus foot with hammered digits, EPTS.  It was recommended he meet a medical board for consideration of separation as he did not meet the entry medical fitness standards.  A medical board found him unfit for duty with a diagnosis of pes cavus (flat feet) and recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5.  The applicant waived his right to a physical evaluation board (PEB) and requested discharge for physical disability.  

On 24 November 1982, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5 for a physical disability, EPTS.  He had completed 7 months and 4 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  Chapter 5 provides for the separation of an enlisted soldier for non-service aggravated EPTS conditions when the soldier requests waiver of PEB evaluation.  The soldier must be eligible for referral into the disability system, must not meet medical retention standards as determined by the MEB, the disqualifying defect or condition must have existed prior to entry on the current period of duty and not been aggravated by such duty; the soldier is mentally competent and knowledge of information about his medical condition would not be harmful to his well-being; and further hospitalization is not required.  After being advised of the right to a full and fair hearing, the soldier must still desire to waive PEB action and he must be advised that a PEB evaluation is required for receipt of Army disability benefits but waiver of the PEB would not prevent applying for VA benefits.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The applicant provides no evidence to show otherwise.

3.  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

__rgh___  __mdm___  __jps___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031189	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.