RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 June 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017633


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |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 characterization of service be changed
to honorable or general under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states there were no pre-existing conditions prior to his
enlistment.  He cannot get any [veterans] benefits.

3.  The applicant provides a VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of
Claim); his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty); a Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 8
September 1982; and an SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 8
September 1982.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 11 April 1983.  The application submitted in this case is
dated          1 December 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 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 completed an enlistment physical examination on 8
September 1982.  On his SF 93, he indicated that he had none of the listed
medical conditions (e.g., “trick” or locked knee), and the examining
physician indicated the applicant denied [any] significant medical history.
 His SF 88 indicated his clinical evaluation was completely normal and
chest x-rays were negative.  He was found qualified for enlistment.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 November 1982.

5.  While in advanced individual training, the applicant underwent Entrance
Physical Standards Board Proceedings.  His DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical
Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings) indicated he had a history of [a]
osteochondritis dissecans defect of the left knee which existed prior to
service.  (In osteochondritis dissecans, a loose piece of bone and
cartilage separates from the end of the bone.  The loose piece may stay in
place or fall into the joint space, making the joint unstable.  This causes
pain and feelings that the joint is "catching" or "giving way.")  The
applicant stated he could not stand for prolonged periods of time, or run,
or do strenuous activity.  The condition was found on x-ray of the left
knee.

6.  The DA Form 4707 indicated the applicant was informed of the medical
findings and understood that Army legal advice was available to him or he
could consult with civilian counsel at his own expense.  He was given four
options, one of which was to disagree with the proceedings because his
condition did not exist prior to service and request that his case be
returned to the medical approving authority for reconsideration.  The
applicant initialed the option indicating that he concurred with the
proceedings and requested discharge without delay.

7.  On 11 April 1983, the applicant was released from active duty under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, for not meeting
procurement medical fitness standards.  He had completed 5 months and 3
days of creditable active service.  His character of service was listed as
“ENTRY LEVEL STATUS.”

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 sets the policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members 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 active duty.  Medical proceedings, regardless of the date
completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by
appropriate military medical authority within   6 months of the Soldier’s
initial entrance of active duty that would have permanently or temporarily
disqualified him or her for entry into the military service or entry on
active duty had it been detected at that time and does not disqualify him
or her for retention.  Unless the reason for separation requires a specific
characterization, a Soldier will be awarded an uncharacterized description
of service if in an entry-level status.  (For Regular Army Soldiers, entry
level status is the first 180 days of continuous active duty.)

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  In pertinent part, it states that according to
accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions
exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have
existed or have started before the individual entered the military service.
 Examples include manifestation of lesions or symptoms of chronic disease
from date of entry on active military service (or so close to that date of
entry that the disease could not have started in so short a period) will be
accepted as proof that the disease existed prior to entrance into active
military service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is acknowledged that the applicant’s enlistment physical examination
did not note that he had any problems with his knees.  However, enlistment
physical examinations are not comprehensive examinations.  The only x-rays
the applicant received during his enlistment physical examination were
chest x-rays. It appears his knee condition was not discovered until after
he complained that he could not stand for prolonged periods of time, or
run, or do strenuous activity. At that time, x-rays of his knees were taken
and an osteochondritis dissecans defect of his left knee was discovered.

2.  It appears the strenuousness of initial entry training may have led the
applicant’s knee condition to manifest itself in pain symptoms.  However,
the condition itself appears to have met the accepted medical principle
that certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when
discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have
started before the individual entered the military service.

3.  In addition, the applicant had the opportunity to challenge the finding
that his knee condition existed prior to his enlistment.  He did not
challenge that finding but instead concurred with it.

4.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The entry level status
characterization of service he was given was appropriate since he completed
less than 180 days of active service.  An entry level status or
uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a
Soldier’s military service.  It merely means that the Soldier has not been
in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as
honorable or otherwise.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 11 April 1983; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on          10 April 1986.  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.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lds___  __jrs___  __cad___  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.




                                  __Linda D. Simmons____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2006i0017633                          |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070605                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHAR                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19830411                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, para 5-11                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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