MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            18 March 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015949

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Ed Clark		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 military records be corrected to show that he was separated from active duty with entitlement to disability compensation and benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes that a seizure disorder or a heart condition can be aggravated by stress and hard training.  He also criticizes medical treatment he apparently received at a VA facility and disputes decisions made by that agency in his case; however, those issues are not matters to be considered by this Board.

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

He entered active duty on 19 August 1986 and served as a carpentry and masonry specialist.

A copy of a Record of Acute Medical Care, submitted by the applicant and dated 25 November 1986 (approximately 3 months after entering active duty), shows, in part, "19 year old presenting with hx (history) of fainting several times…relates that this happened before..."  The word EPTS (existed prior to service) is underlined.  Medical tests were ordered and the applicant was referred to a neurologist. 

A Consultation Sheet, also submitted by the applicant and dated 24 June 
1987, shows "19 year old white male with history of syncope (fainting) and alleged seizures…Please evaluate for complex seizure disorder and make recommendation."

On 7 July 1987 a neurologist who completed the aforementioned Consultation Report wrote that it appeared that the applicant's syncope could be due to a seizure disorder or possibly to a cardiac condition (vaso-vagal seizure).  He referred the applicant to a cardiologist and, stating that the applicant was "unfit for duty" recommended "EPTS separation."

On 12 November 1987 the applicant underwent an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD).  The EPSBD Proceedings show, in the History of Present Illness portion, "[The applicant] has presented on several occasions with symptoms relative to syncope (fainting).  He and his local physician have certified that these syncopal episodes occurred prior to entrance on active duty with the US Army.  There was no mention of syncopal episodes on his induction physical examination."  

The EPSBD Proceedings form contains a statement above the applicant’s signature and initials indicating that he was informed of the medical findings; that he was advised that he had the right to consult with an attorney employed by the Army who was available or to consult with a civilian attorney at his own expense; and that he had the right to request to be discharged from the Army without delay or to request retention on active duty; and that, if retained, he could be involuntarily reclassified into another military specialty based on his medical condition.  Following that statement, he was required to initial and sign one of the four following options:

(1).  I concur with these proceedings and request to be discharged from the US Army without delay.

(2).  I concur with these proceedings and request that I be retained on active duty.

(3).  I disagree with these proceedings because my condition did not exist prior to service (specific medical evidence is attached) and request my case be returned to the medical approving authority for reconsideration.

(4).  I disagree with these proceedings because my condition was not disqualifying on entry and was aggravated by service (specific medical evidence is attached) and request my case be returned to the medical approving authority for reconsideration.

On 23 November 1987, as shown by his initials and his signature, the applicant chose to be discharged without delay.  

On 7 December 1987 his request was approved by the convening authority.

On 15 December 1987, with 1 year, 3 months and 27 days total active service, he was honorably separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5, by reason of EPTS physical disability.

Requested VA records pertaining to the applicant were not provided to the Board.

Army Regulation 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement or Separation, chapter 5, provides for the separation of individuals who do not meet medical retention 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 evidence of record shows that prior to his entry on active duty the applicant had a history of fainting; that he did not disclose this medical condition at the time of his entrance physical examination; and that he again experienced this condition on several occasions shortly after his entry on active duty.  His contention that he should be provided compensation and benefits from the Army based on this deception and his statement that the condition could have been aggravated by stress and hard training does not provide a basis for granting his request.

2.  Upon discovery of his EPTS condition, the applicant was referred to an EPSBD.  At that time he was provided the opportunity to request to be retained on active duty.  He chose not to do so.  Instead, he requested to be discharged without delay and his request was approved by the appropriate authority.

3.  The applicant's honorable separation from active duty without entitlement to physical disability compensation or benefits was correct and in accordance with regulation.

4.  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

JMA_____  KYF____  EWL____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-08235/1999015949	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 March 18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.