RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 April 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013903


      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      |
|     |Ms. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David Haasenritter            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John Heck                     |     |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 correction of appropriate military records to
show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow reenlistment.  In
effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those
disqualifications which preclude reenlistment.

2.  The applicant states that he was being treated at Fort Meade, Maryland,
when he was boarded out of the Army.  He states that he was not given the
opportunity to be reclassified or otherwise cross-trained to another
military occupational specialty even though he was qualified as an
administrative specialist (71L) and had prior service classification as a
United States Air Force Security Police with Armed Services Vocational
Aptitude Battery General Test Scores in the 98 percentile.  He states, in
effect, that his overall general test score was 125.  He states that in the
current climate of the Global War on Terrorism and the need for skilled
individuals for both civilian and Reserve slots, he has many skills to
offer the military.  He states that he has firearms training from several
institutions and that he is a skilled published writer.  He concludes by
stating that his skills are not found or easily acquired and that he brings
not only his skills, but also his educational and life experience to the
table.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from a doctor dated 1 May
2003, addressed "To whom it may concern", stating the surgeries and
treatments that the applicant has undergone since the early 1980s; and the
findings of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scan of his left and right knees
dated 18 May 2001.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 15 September 1987.  The application submitted
in this case is dated 20 September 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.  After completing 1 year, 10 months, and 11 days of service as a member
of the United States Air Force as a security specialist the applicant
enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, for 5 years, in the pay grade of E-3.  On 17 January 1984,
the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  On 23 February
1984, the applicant was transferred to Germany and awarded a canon
crewmember military occupational specialty.

4.  On 19 December 1986, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to
determine whether the applicant should be referred to a Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB) as a result of injuries that he sustained.  The MEB diagnosed
the applicant with arthritis, early post traumatic following an in-service
injury to his left knee, with persistent effusion and marked pain; and
chondromalacia patella of the right knee with surgically absent medical
meniscus, and swelling at 6 weeks post operation.  The MEB recommended that
the applicant be referred to a PEB for further evaluation.  The applicant
concurred with the MEB's findings and recommendation and he indicated that
he had no desire to continue on active duty.

5.  On 3 March 1987, an informal PEB convened to determine the applicant's
fitness for retention on active duty.  The diagnosis of the PEB was
chondromalacia patellae bilateral and post traumatic arthritis, early, left
knee, status post lateral meniscectomy.  Further diagnosis by the PEB
included medical meniscectomy, right recent, with bilateral moderate
effusion and crepitus but full flexion, extension, and on instability;
early arthritis only on left knee x-ray. The PEB determined that the
applicant's medical condition prevented satisfactory performance of duty as
a cannon crewmember in his grade.  The PEB found the applicant physically
unfit for continued service with a combined service connected disability
rating of 20 percent, and recommended separation from the service with
severance pay.  The applicant indicated that he did not concur with the
findings and recommendation of the PEB and he demanded a formal hearing
with a personal appearance

6.  A formal PEB convened, with the applicant present, on 2 June 1987 to
determine the applicant's fitness for retention on active duty.  The formal
PEB's diagnosis mirrored the informal PEB's diagnosis and the formal PEB
concluded that the findings and recommendation made by the informal PEB
were appropriate, in that the applicant's medical condition prevented
satisfactory performance of duty as a cannon crewmember in his grade.  The
formal PEB recommended separation with severance pay and a 20 percent
combined service-connected disability rating.  The PEB’s Board Proceedings
fail to indicate whether the applicant concurred or non-concurred with the
formal PEB's findings and recommendations.
7.  After completing 3 years, 7 months and 29 days of net active Army
service, the applicant was honorably discharged on 15 September 1987, with
severance pay, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-
24e(3), due to physical disability.  He was furnished an RE-4 code.

8.  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.  An RE-4 applies to persons with a non-waivable disqualification.

6.  Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of
the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will
be prepared to reflect an individual's service as it exists on the date of
release from active duty or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was separated and assigned an RE code in accordance with
regulations then in effect.

2.  The contention made by the applicant has been noted.  However, the
evidence of record clearly shows that during his processing through medical
channels, he had no desire to remain in the service.

3.  The PEB found the applicant physically unfit for continued service with
a combined service-connected disability rating of 20 percent, and the PEB
recommended separation from the service with severance pay.  He was
discharged as a result of a physical disability and he was assigned an RE
code that reflects his narrative reason for separation.  In accordance with
the applicable regulation, this information is properly reflected on his DD
Form 214 and the applicant has submitted insufficient justification to
warrant the relief requested.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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 foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.
6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 September 1987; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 14 September 1990.  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

__JS____  ___DH __  __JH____  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.




                                  _______John Slone___________
                                            CHAIRPERSON
                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060013903                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070419                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS         |
|2.  4                   |100.0300/CHANGE REENTRY CODE            |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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