RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           10 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003854


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Lisa O. Guion                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

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 the RE code assigned him at the
time of his discharge is incorrect due to a medical misdiagnosis.  He
indicates that a recent Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) evaluation
determined that he was not disabled and that he is physically fit to rejoin
the military.

3.  The applicant provides his South Texas Veterans Health Care System
(STVHCS) VA Medical Records in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error that
occurred on 2 March 1995.  The application submitted in this case is dated
31 January 2005.

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 limitations 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 records show that after having previously
served in the United States Army Reserve (USAR), he enlisted in the Regular
Army (RA) and entered active duty on 2 March 1995.  He was trained in,
awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Equipment
Record and Parts Specialist).

4.  The applicant’s record includes medical treatment records that contain
a narrative summary (NARSUM) prepared by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)
that considered the applicant’s case on 10 June 1998.  The NARSUM indicates
the applicant sustained a blunt trauma to the right eye with inferior
hemorrhage overlying the retina with evidence of mild retinal detachment on
17 November 1995.  He was referred to the MEB because of worsening right
retinal detachment, which caused him further vision loss at the time.
5.  The MEB diagnosed the applicant with "partial retinal detachment of the
right eye" and "ischemic coronary artery disease", and indicated that he
did not meet retention standards for military duty.  The MEB recommended
the applicant be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for further
disposition.  The applicant was informed and agreed with the findings and
recommendations of the MEB on 10 August 1998.

6.  On 27 August 1998, a PEB convened at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
(WRAMC), to consider the applicant’s case.  The PEB found the applicant was
physically unfit for military service, and it recommended he be separated
with severance pay, with a combined physical disability rating of 10
percent.  On
1 September 1998, the applicant concurred with the findings and
recommendations of the PEB.

7.  On 5 November 1998, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty (REFRAD) after completing a total of 3 years, 8 months, and 4 days of
active military service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time
confirms he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 4-24b(3), Army
Regulation 635-40, by reason of physical disability with severance pay.
Item 26 (Separation Code) shows he was assigned a Separation Program
Designator (SPD) code of JFL, and Item 27 (Reentry Code) shows he was
assigned an RE-3 code.

9.  In support of his application, the applicant provides VA medical
treatment records from STVHCS.  The Assessment/Plan of Medical Record
document, dated 22 December 2004, indicates the applicant's retina is
attached.

10.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability
Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and
procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of
physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office,
grade, rank, or rating.  Paragraph 4-24b(3) of this regulation provides for
the separation of a member for physical disability with severance pay when
the final decision is directed by the United States Army Physical
Disability Agency (USAPDA).

11.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for a medical
condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.
The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for
further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and
regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical
condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the
social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.
12.  Under its own policies and regulations, the VA can evaluate a veteran
throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon
that agency's examinations and findings.  However, these changes do not
call into question the application of the fitness standards and the
disability ratings assigned by proper military medical authorities during
the applicant’s processing through the Army PDES.

13.  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
covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and
processing into the RA and the USAR.  Chapter 3 of that regulation
prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.
That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE
codes.  RE-3 applies to members who are considered not fully qualified for
reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification
is waivable.

14.  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.  It states, in
pertinent part, that the SPD code of JFL is the appropriate code to assign
to Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 4-24b(3), Army
Regulation 635-40, by reason of physical disability with severance pay.
The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table in effect at the time established RE-
3 as the appropriate code to assign members separated under these
provisions, this RE code assignment remains in effect under the current
regulation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was assigned an incorrect RE code at
the time of his separation from active duty because of a medical
misdiagnosis has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the
provisions of paragraph 2-24b(3), Army Regulation 635-40, by reason of
disability, severance pay.  By regulation, separation under this provision
of the regulation and for this reason mandated that he be assigned an RE-3
code upon his discharge.  In view of the circumstances, the RE-3 code
assigned the applicant at discharge was and still is appropriate based on
the authority and reason for his separation.

3..  Although the VA has now, some nine years after the fact, determined
that his retina is now attached to his right eye, this does impact the PEB
decision made at the time, which the applicant concurred with.  The VA can
evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of
disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  However,
these changes do not call into question the application of the fitness
standards and the disability ratings assigned by proper military medical
authorities during the applicant’s processing through the Army PDES.  As a
result, this current VA determination does not support a change to his
separation document at this late date.

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.  The applicant is advised that although no further change to his RE code
is recommended, this does not mean he is being denied reenlistment.  While
RE-3 does apply to persons who are not considered fully qualified for
reentry or continuous service, there are provisions that provide for a
waiver of the disqualification.  If he desires to reenlist, he should
contact a local recruiter to determine his eligibility.  Those individuals
can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the
time, and are required to process
RE code waivers.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MKP_  __LDS __  ___MJF__  DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            ____Margaret K. Patterson____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003854                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |NA                                      |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/11/10                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1998/11/05                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-40                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Disability, Severance Pay               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]