| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Ms. Deborah Jacobs | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, disability separation. The applicant states that he was never told the difference between an honorable and a medical discharge, and was told to take the honorable instead of the medical.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 16 August 1966 for a period of 2 years.
On 30 August 1966, the applicant was given a permanent profile for Keratoconus (a cone-shaped deformity of the cornea) bilateral. The physician recommended the immediate suspension of military training pending his separation from the service.
On 30 August 1966, the applicant requested discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3a(6), because he felt at the time of his induction he did not meet the medical fitness standards.
On 6 September 1966, a medical examination found the applicant unqualified for induction.
On 9 September 1966, a Medical Board determined that the applicant suffered from Keratoconus, bilateral, which existed prior to service (EPTS) and recommended that he be separated from military service. The findings and recommendation of the Medical Board were approved on 9 September 1966.
On 20 September 1966, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200, paragraph 5-9, for failure to meet medical fitness standards at the time of induction. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he had
1 month and 5 days of creditable service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Paragraph 5-9, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of those individuals who were not qualified under procurement medical standards, who manifested symptoms of medical problems that would have made them not qualified under procurement medical standards or who became not qualified prior to entry.
The applicant was appropriately separated under the provisions of the above cited regulation. It was determined that he did not meet procurement standards for induction.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 20 September 1966, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 20 September 1969.
The application is dated 31 May 2001 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__DJ __ __EJA __ ___DPH CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060034 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011106 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071668C070402
Entrance Physical Standards Board Proceedings of 27 March 1991 show that the applicant had bilateral arch pain and had been treated with arch supports without relief. There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to indicate that her discharge for failure to meet procurement medical standards was in error or unjust, nor is there evidence to indicate that she was medically discharged. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000216
The applicant requests removal of the reason for his discharge from his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 29 July 1993. The EPSBD further found the applicant did meet retention standards under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, and recommended his separation from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11, for separation of personnel who...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08395-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WAsHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No: 6 February 2002 8395-01 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy FORME REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. committed any acts of misconduct during his enlistment, or performed his duties in an unsatisfactory manner, it would be in the interest of justice to assign him a reenlistment code RE-3E, which would permit him to apply for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009926C070206
The applicant's records contain a copy of a SF Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 9 May 1991, that was prepared prior to his entrance on active duty (AD) in the Army National Guard (ARNG), which shows that he was medically qualified for enlistment with a 111111 physical profile. The evidence of record shows that the applicant sustained an injury to his left knee, at the age of 15, prior to his entry on AD, EPTS. His DD Form 3647 indicated that he was found unfit for enlistment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091089C070212
The applicant concurred and requested discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, stated that members who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for initial enlistment will be discharged when medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, establishes that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authorities within 6 months of the member’s initial entrance on active duty, which would have disqualified...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009481
The applicant states that the DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) Proceedings) explains that he was discharged because of the medical condition of Spina-bifida. He was discharged from active duty, in pay grade E-1, on 3 February 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, Did not meet procurement medical fitness standards no disability. His character of service was "Uncharacterized." The evidence shows he was found not medically qualified...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000662C070208
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show he was discharged on 16 October 1967 with 91 days of creditable active service. In 1974, the applicant requested enlistment. Paragraph 5-9a, in effect at the time, provided for the discharge of individuals who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for initial enlistment when a medical board, regardless of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018391
His record contains a DA Form 1049 (Personnel Action), dated 13 October 1966, which shows he requested he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-9a(1)(a) (Discharge of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards) "because of a medical condition which would have permanently disqualified him from entry into military service had it been detected prior to 19 September 1966." Paragraph 5-9...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03702
Her reason for this action was a medical evaluation board that met at Lackland AFB, TX on 10 December 1996 which found he did not meet minimum medical standards to join the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states that not only is corneal dystrophy of any type, including keratocopus of any degree disqualifying for entry, but so is the corrective surgery. Department of Defense and Air...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012228
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Evidence of record shows the same SSN was used at the time of the applicants enlistment and discharge. Since the governing regulation states that a DD Form 214 would not be issued to enlisted personnel who were dropped from a period of...