IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  19 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110013906 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of the Board's denial of her previous request for reinstatement in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program.

2.  She states she is requesting reconsideration of the Board's decision based on her rehabilitation status.  She states, in effect, her physical status has improved and she has reincorporated physical and healthy lifestyle changes into her daily activities, which she believes has restored her capability to endure the physical requirements of a Soldier. 

3.  She provides Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) progress notes.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100015140, on 10 February 2011.

2.  The applicant submits VA progress notes not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, they are considered new evidence and as such warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The original Record of Proceedings states:

	a.  She concurred with the findings and recommendation of the physical evaluation board (PEB) and she was permanently retired with a reentry (RE) code of 4.

	b.  Although her last evaluation report indicated she could perform her duties despite her profile, her duties including being the arms room custodian.  With physical profile limitations that included the prohibition of lifting over 10 pounds and carrying her assigned weapon, it is difficult to see how she could have performed some of her duties.  For example, the M249 (the Squad Automatic Weapon) weighs 17 pounds; a loaded M-16 weighs 9 pounds.

	c.  Since her RE code is for a non-waivable disqualification, there is no basis for granting her request for reinstatement in the AGR Program.

	d.  The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was not warranted to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case.

4.  The applicant provided VA progress notes taken during the period May 2010 to April 2011.  The notes indicate she reported she had a significant improvement in her [back] pain with pain only when she "overexerted herself."  The notes further indicate based on an examination conducted in April 2011 she should not have any limitations on her physical activity.  However, she would need to be evaluated by the military to determine if she would be able to qualify for military service.  

5.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the SPD's to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation states the reason for discharge based on SPD code SFJ is "Disability, Permanent" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(1).

6.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.  Chapter 3 prescribes basic eligibility for prior-service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes.

7.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table, dated 15 June 2006, shows Soldiers assigned an SPD of SFJ will be assigned an RE code of 4.  RE-4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant provides additional VA progress notes, more recent than those previously available to the Board, which she contends indicate an improvement in her physical status to such an extent she is now capable of performing the physical requirements of being a Soldier.  However, there remains insufficient evidence she would be able to qualify for military service or that her previous medical problems for which she was discharged from active duty would not resurface under the demanding conditions of military service.  

2.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting her request for reinstatement in the AGR Program.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X____  ___X___   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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100015140, dated, 10 February 2011.



      _______ _  X_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110013906



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110013906



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1