RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 January 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006249


      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             |
|     |Mr. Dean L. Turnbull              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Rodney E. Barber              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David W. Tucker               |     |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 that his honorable discharge be changed to a
medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while he was in Company K at
basic combat training, his “shoulder got blown out during war games.”  He
states that he wanted his right shoulder fixed and remain on active duty,
but was discharged from active duty instead.  He states that the Department
of Veterans Affairs has told him he was not eligible for benefits because
he did not complete 90 days of active duty.

3.  The applicant does not provide any additional documents in support of
his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 2 February 1966, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 21 April 2006.

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 entered active duty on 3 January 1966.  He attended basic
combat training but was unable to complete his training due to a physical
disability that Existed Prior To Service (EPTS).  He was honorably
discharged on 2 February 1966.

4.  An outpatient narrative summary dated 17 January 1966 shows that the
applicant reported that his right shoulder was dislocated in high school
during a wrestling match in March 1964.  Subsequently, his shoulder was
dislocated six more times.  Those dislocations were generally unassociated
with trauma.  A civilian physician (orthopedic surgeon) had recommended
that he limit the use of his right arm above his head and later recommended
surgical repair to his right shoulder.  However, the applicant decided not
to have surgery since he wasn’t having any problems with his shoulder after
he limited his overhead use of his arm.  The applicant was referred for
treatment while in the military when he once again dislocated his shoulder
on the parallel bars.

5.  On 25 January 1966, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD) found the
applicant medically unfit for further military service in accordance with
current medical fitness standards as a result of his dislocated shoulder.
The MEBD proceedings show that the applicant did not present any views in
his own behalf and he did not desire to continue on active duty.  The board
recommended that the applicant be separated from the military under the
provisions section XII, Army Regulation 635-40B (Physical Evaluation for
Retention, Retirement, or Separation).

6.  On 26 January 1966, the findings and recommendations were approved.  On
27 January 1966, the applicant was informed of the approved findings and
recommendations of the board.

7.  A DA Form 1049 (Personnel Action), signed by the applicant shows that
he requested discharge for physical disability.  This document shows that
the applicant was notified that based upon preliminary findings that he was
considered unfit for retention because of his physical disability which was
considered to have existed prior to 3 January 1966.  The applicant
acknowledged that he was eligible to be considered by a Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB) but waived that right, which meant that he would be discharged
for physical disability without disability retirement or disability
severance pay without further hearing.

8.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 2 February 1966 for medical
disqualification, EPTS, under the provision Army Regulation 635-40A,
paragraph 33.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40A, paragraph 33, states that any member of the
Army who are ordered into active duty military service for a period in
excess of  
30 days and who are determined to be unfit by a Medical Board for retention
on active duty by reason of physical or mental disqualifications which were
not incurred or aggravated while entitled receive basic pay may request
either discharge or relief from active duty, as appropriate under this
section, or elect appearance before a physical evaluation board as
prescribed in section IV.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that while he was in Company K at basic combat
training, his “shoulder got blown out during war games.”  He also states
that he wanted his right shoulder fixed and remain on active duty, but was
discharged from active duty instead.

2.  The applicant’s records show he dislocated his shoulder while on the
parallel bars during basic combat training.  When he was treated for that
dislocation, he admitted that he had a prior history of recurrent
dislocation of his right shoulder starting when he dislocated his right
shoulder during a wresting match at high school in March 1964.  He also
stated that prior to entering active duty an orthopedic surgeon had offered
him the opportunity to have his right shoulder repaired but he refused to
have it done.

3.  The applicant stated during his MEBD that he did not desire to remain
on active duty, and he waived a PEB when he was notified that the MEBD had
found his dislocated shoulder to be EPTS.  These actions are not consistent
with a Soldier who desired to remain on active duty.

4.  Since the applicant's medical condition existed prior to entrance on
active service, he was properly discharged under the provisions of AR 635-
40A.

5.  The Board must review a case with a presumption of regularity, that
what the Army did was correct.  It is up to the applicant to prove
otherwise.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence or argument to
overcome the presumption of regularity.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 2 February 1966; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on  
1 February 1969.  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
timely file in this case.  The separation under this provision will be
accomplished within 72 hours after receipt of authorization for such
separation.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____jcr___  __dwt__  ____reb__  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.




                                  _________Jeffrey C. Redmann______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006249                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060118                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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