| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | ||
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his reentry (RE) code of RE-3 be upgraded.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he would like to have his RE-3 code removed from his records so that he may reenter the military. He states that the RE-3 code he received was due to his poor vision, which has been corrected with glasses. He claims that he was told that the RE-3 code would allow him to reenlist.
3. The applicant provides a self authored letter, dated 14 March 2003; a record of eye examinations he took on 20 September 1996 and 22 September 2002; a copy of an Army National Guard separation document (NGB Form 22); and a memorandum from a sergeant from the 94th Regional Support Command (RSC).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of (error or injustice) which occurred
on 1 December 1992. The application submitted in this case is dated 13 March 2003.
2. 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. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant’s military record shows that he enlisted in the Army National Guard for 8 years on 24 June 1992. On 4 August 1992, he entered active duty in order to complete his initial active duty for training.
11. Table 4-1 of Army Regulation 601-210 provides a list of all waivable moral and administrative disqualifications. It confirms that those individuals who separated from any component of the Army for medial reasons, to include separation with or without disability severance pay, are disqualified from reenlistment; however, this disqualification is waivable.
12. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The SPD code of JFT was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for soldiers separating under the provisions of paragraph 5-11,
Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of not meeting procurement of medical fitness standard. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table used in conjunction with this regulation establishes that RE-3 will be the assigned to members separated with this SPD code.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s claim that his medical problem was corrected through the use of glasses and he would like an RE code that would allow him to reenlist was carefully considered. However, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished only after he was evaluated by an EPSBD and concurred with the findings and recommendations of this properly constituted medical board.
2. The evidence further confirms that although he had the option to disagree with the EPSBD findings and recommendations and/or to request retention on active duty subsequent to his concurrence with the EPSBD separation recommendation, he did neither and instead requested immediate discharge from the Army.
3. By regulation, the RE-3 code is the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards. As a result, the RE-3 code assigned the applicant at discharge was and still is appropriate based on the authority and reason for his separation.
4. 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.
5. In view of the forgoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.
6. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 1 December 1992; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 1 December 1995. However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088131 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UNCHAR |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1992/12/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Para 5-11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088497C070403
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: Such conditions must be discovered during the first six months of active duty, and such findings will result in an EPSBD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018312
The applicant provides copies of the following: * Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination) * SF 93 (Report of Medical History) * SF 513 (Medical Record Consultation Sheet) * Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Information memorandum * Medical 200 Board summary * DA Form 4707 (EPSBD Proceedings) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The regulation stated in: a. Paragraph 5-11 - Soldiers who were not medically...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020301
The applicant states he was discharged due to having a LASIK procedure within the 6-month period prior to his entry on active duty. It also shows 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. The applicant contends his RE code of "3" should be changed because he had successful LASIK eye surgery, his vision is now 20/15, and he would like to reenter military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013992
This portion of the EPSBD Proceedings also provided the applicant the opportunity to concur with the proceedings and request retention on active duty; to disagree with the proceedings because his condition did not exist prior to service; or to disagree with the proceedings because his condition was not disqualifying on entry and was aggravated by service. On 7 August 2009, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009208
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to change his characterization of service from uncharacterized to honorable and his narrative reason for separation from failed medical/physical/procurement standards to medical. On 1 February 2012, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017740
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110017740 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The EPSBD recommended that the applicant be separated from the military due to his diagnosed medical condition. This portion of the EPSBD Proceedings also provided the applicant the opportunity to concur with the proceedings and request retention on active duty; to disagree with the proceedings because his condition did not exist prior to service; or to disagree with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010136
On 20 August 2008, the applicant concurred with the EPSBD Proceedings in Item 21 (Action by Service Member) of the DA Form 4707 and requested to be discharged from the Army without delay. This portion of the EPSBD Proceedings also provided the applicant the opportunity to concur with the proceedings and request retention on active duty; to disagree with the proceedings because his condition did not exist prior to service; or to disagree with the proceedings because his condition was not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000572
A DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), dated 2 August 2011, reports: a. after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the EPSBD found that the applicant was unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards due to having exercise-induced asthma; and b. the opinion of the evaluating physician was that the applicant's medical condition existed prior to his entry into military service. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000639
Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entrance on active duty, active duty training, or initial entry training, will be separated. A medical proceeding conducted by an EPSBD, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within 6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140010784
The applicant requests, in effect, the following: * a change of her uncharacterized discharge to an honorable or a general discharge * correction of item 26 (Separation Code) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 2. The regulation stated in: a. Paragraph 5-11 - Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on...