APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his record be corrected to show that he was discharged for a physical disability. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was released for a medical condition which did not exist at the time of his induction.

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

On 8 December 1967, the applicant’s physical examination for induction was annotated that he had a history of asthma, since childhood with infrequent episodes and that he was found qualified for induction.

On 8 December 1967, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  He was advanced to pay grade E-3.

During the period 11 June-25 July 1968, when he returned to the Continental United States on emergency leave, he was assigned to a unit in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).

On 12 September 1968, while apparently in the process of returning to the RVN, he complained of and was treated for asthma.  Subsequently, on 26 September 1968, medical authorities recommended his separation, indicating that he was not deployable.

On 26 September 1968, the applicant requested “Release by Virtue of Void Induction”, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-9.1, because he did not meet medical fitness standards for induction on 8 December 1967.  In that request, he indicated “I understand that my release from the Army will be without entitlement to disability benefits from the service.”


On 27 September 1968, a physical examination indicated the applicant had asthma, which had existed prior to entrance (EPTS), and recommended his separation under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-9.1 (Inductees who did not meet the medical fitness standards at time of induction).

On 10 October 1968, his induction was voided under the above cited regulation.  Contrary to regulation, a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) was issued which indicated that he had served   10 months and 3 days.  He was authorized the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

On 9 November 1978, a VA Rating Decision denied service-connection for asthma.

On 16 July 1984, a VA Rating Decision denied service-connection for exposure to Agent Orange.

On 5 November 1994, a VA Rating Decision denied service-connection for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), indicating “no satisfactory evidence of a stressor”; however, that decision did indicate he was cocaine dependent - a product of the veteran’s own willful misconduct.

On 18 July 1996, a VA Rating Decision awarded him service-connected disability rating of 10 percent for PTSD, effective 7 March 1995.  It further indicated non-service-connection for cocaine dependence and marijuana abuse.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-9.1 (e), indicates, in pertinent part, that “Individuals whose induction’s are void will be released from the custody and control of the Army by Special Orders.  The Discharge Authority will not issue a discharge certificate or a DD Form 214.  The following entry will be made in item 38, DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record): “Released from military control by virtue of a void induction (cite Special Order number, SPN and issuing headquarters)”...”.

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 was erroneously issued a DD Form 214, in violation of Army Regulation 635-200.

3.  The applicant’s implied allegation that he was medically fit for induction at the time of his entrance into the Army of the United States is not consistent with medical records or his request for Release by Virtue of Void Induction.

4.  The evidence shows that the applicant requested his induction be voided and that he understood his release would be without entitlement to disability benefits.

5.  The evidence in this case does not support his contention that there was an error or injustice in his separation from active duty.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the appellant’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

                       DENY APPLICATION



						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director