MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 8 January 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001059457

         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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Mr. Roger W. Able		Member
Mr. Terry L. Placek		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, reconsideration of her previous request to correct the military records of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), to show that he was discharged for failure to meet induction and retention standards by reason of medical unfitness.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that her husband was unjustly drafted at the age of 45, was improperly accepted for induction with a radical blood pressure reading of 140/16, was required to undergo infantry training with much younger men, and once it was discovered that he did not meet induction standards, was improperly discharged for the convenience of the government. She goes on to state that Army Regulation 40-501 clearly shows that he did not meet induction or retention standards and that the Army violated its own regulations. She further contends that the rigors he endured in training at such an advanced age aggravated his condition and contributed to his death in 1966. Accordingly, his discharge should be corrected to reflect the truth about his military service. She also states that it is unjust for her to provide the burden of proof in this case when it is the Army’s responsibility to safeguard military records and to obtain any alternate records that may be available. In the absence of evidence, the service member should receive any benefit of doubt. In support of her application, she submits the back page of a physical examination form showing a blood pressure of 140/16, a copy of his Honorable Discharge Certificate, a copy of her marriage certificate, and a copy of the FSM’s death certificate.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The FSM's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, which destroyed millions of service records. However, information obtained from the limited information provided by the applicant, as well as a final pay statement obtained from alternate sources show:

On 10 July 1942, while working as a highway laborer, the FSM was inducted at Fort McClellan, Alabama at the age of 44 years and 9 months of age. It appears that he underwent training as an ammo bearer. The available records also show that he was treated for problems with his feet and groin area.

Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the FSM’s discharge are not available for review, the final statement of pay indicates that the FSM was designated a selective trainee, that he submitted a request for discharge to accept employment in an essential industry and that his request for discharge was approved. He was honorably discharged at his request for the convenience of the government at Camp Forrest, Tennessee, on 26 February 1943. He had served 7 months and 17 days of active service and he indicated at the time of separation that he had no reason to believe, at the time, that he was suffering from the effects of any wound, injury or disease, or that he had any disability or impairment of health. He was medically cleared for separation by a medical corps officer.
The incomplete physical examination form submitted by the applicant shows that the FSM had a blood pressure reading of “Systolic” 140 / “Diastolic” 16. The form contains no date and makes no distinction between induction or discharge.

The applicant married the FSM on 20 January 1945 and the FSM died on 21 September 1966 at the age of 68. The cause of death is listed as bronchopneumonia, pulmonary edema and congestive heart failure (arteriosclerotic HD). His occupation was listed as a farmer.

Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 provides the current standards for medical fitness for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention and related policies and procedures. It provides, in pertinent part, that causes for rejection for induction include hypertensive vascular disease, evidence by three consecutive diastolic blood pressure measurements greater than 90mmHg or three consecutive systolic pressures greater than 140mmHg.

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 this requirement.

2. While the unavailability of records as well as the passage of time have hampered the Board’s ability to ascertain exactly what happened in the FSM’s case, the Board finds no evidence to suggest that the FSM should have been separated for failure to meet induction or retention standards due to medical unfitness.

3. The applicant’s contention that the FSM did not meet the induction standards of the applicable regulations appears to be without merit. While the FSM may not have been an ideal candidate for military service, his blood pressure meets the requirements established in AR 40-501. Additionally, without complete records, the Board is unable to ascertain whether he volunteered for induction or if his induction was in fact an error. In any event, the applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the actions taken by the Army were in error.

4 The available evidence clearly shows that the FSM requested discharge, indicated that he had no reason to suspect that he had an illness or disease and was ultimately cleared for separation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that he was discharged in accordance with his request for discharge and the regulations in effect at the time.
5. The applicant’s contention that the responsibility for maintaining and safekeeping military medical and personnel records rests with the Army, also appears to be without merit. At the time of the FSM’s separation, medical records remained with the personnel records until they were requested by officials at the Veterans Administration (VA) and were maintained by the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, the agency designated as the official custodian of military service records. Under today’s standards, the medical records are forwarded to the VA office nearest to the soldier’s separation address at the time of separation. The personnel records are then forwarded to the NPRC for filing.

6. While the Board understands the applicant’s frustration regarding the difficulty in obtaining evidence to prove her case, the Army did not have custody of the FSM’s records at the time they were destroyed. Additionally, while this Board is not an investigative agency, exhaustive attempts are frequently made to obtain information from alternative sources that many times prove futile.

7. 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

___tlp ___ ___ra ___ ___ls ___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059457
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2002/01/08
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 191	110.0200/rsn/auth
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.