RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 11 March 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070016205
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.
| |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano | |Director |
| |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Frank C. Jones | |Chairperson |
| |Ms. Carmen Duncan | |Member |
| |Mr. Scott W. Faught | |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 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces
of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be amended to show he
was separated for disability.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was separated for physical
disability, not for administrative reasons.
3. The applicant provides a separate statement, dated 2 November 2007; a
Statement of the Facts Military Discharge Review; his DD Form 214; a DD
Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214); a letter, dated 6 August 2007; and an
email, dated 9 August 2007.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. 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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant was inducted into the Army on 11 July 1967. He was
hospitalized at Brooke General Hospital, Fort Sam Houston, TX on 30
November 1967.
3. On 9 January 1968, a Medical Evaluation Board found the applicant to be
medically unfit due to hydrocephalus, communicating, mild, arrested;
chronic brain syndrome associated with congenital cranial anomaly; and
color blindness, congenital. All three conditions were determined to have
existed prior to service (EPTS).
4. On 8 February 1968, the applicant requested discharge for physical
disability and understood that if his request was approved he would be
separated by reason of physical disability – EPTS. On 9 February 1968, a
Physical Evaluation Board found the applicant to be unfit and recommended
his separation without entitlement to disability benefits.
5. On 16 February 1968, the applicant was honorably discharged due to
physical disability without severance pay.
6. The applicant’s discharge orders show his authority for discharge as
paragraph 9-9, Army Regulation 635-40. Item 11c (Reason and Authority) of
his DD Form 214 shows the authority as “AR 635-200” with a separation
program number (SPN) of 277. Item 15 (Reenlistment Code) shows he was
given a reenlistment code of 4. Item 30 (Remarks) contains the entry “Para
10, AR 601-210 applies.”
7. On 24 April 1973, the applicant’s DD Form 214 was corrected to change
his reenlistment code to 3; to delete the entry, “Para 10, AR 601-210
applies” in item 30; and to add the entry, “Table 2-5, AR 601-210 applies.”
8. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), dated 23 January 1967,
change 2, dated 24 October 1967, stated that SPN 277 would be used when a
Soldier was separated under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation
635-40 (Physical disability – EPTS – established by physical evaluation
board proceedings (not entitled to receive severance pay)).
9. Army Regulation 601-210 (Qualifications and Procedures for Processing
Applicants for Enlistment and Reenlistment in the Regular Army) paragraph
10 of the version in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation,
governed classes of Soldiers ineligible to enlist or reenlist with no
waivers granted.
10. Army Regulation 601-210, Table 2-5 of the version in effect at the
time the applicant’s DD Form 215 was prepared, listed waivable moral and
administrative disqualifications.
11. Army Regulation 601-201 stated at the time (and currently states) that
reenlistment code 4 applied to persons not qualified for continued Army
service, and the disqualification was not waivable. Reenlistment code 3
applied to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the
disqualification was waivable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Item 11c of the applicant’s DD Form 214 contains an incorrect authority
and should be corrected. The correct authority was Army Regulation 635-40,
chapter 9 and not Army Regulation 635-200.
2. Item 11c of the applicant’s DD Form 214 contains the correct SPN. SPN
277 at the time was used when a Soldier was separated under the provisions
of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical disability – EPTS –
established by physical evaluation board proceedings (not entitled to
receive severance pay)). Those were the provisions and conditions under
which the applicant was separated.
BOARD VOTE:
__fcj___ __cd____ __swf___ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
amending item 11c of his DD Form 214 to delete the entry, “AR 635-200” and
add the entry, “chapter 9, AR 635-40.”
____Frank C. Jones____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20070016205 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |YYYYMMDD |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |110.02 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016205
On 9 February 1968, a Physical Evaluation Board found the applicant to be unfit and recommended his separation without entitlement to disability benefits. The correct authority was Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 9 and not Army Regulation 635-200. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending item 11c of his DD Form 214 to delete the entry, AR 635-200 and add the entry, chapter 9, AR 635-40. ____Frank C....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007852
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) by deleting from item 32 (Remarks) the statement "Physical disability - existed prior to service (EPTS) - established by medical board and individual made application for discharge by reason of physical disability (not entitled to receive disability severance pay)." However, his record contains a DA Form 1049 (Personnel Action), dated 6 March 1965, wherein he requested a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005070C070205
The summary also indicates that the applicant would be referred to a medical evaluation board (MEB) with the recommendation that he be separated from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 9. The MEB recommended that the applicant be medically separated from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 9, and be given an expeditious discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was honorably discharged under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009957
The MEB determined he was unfit for retention based on a physically-disabling EPTS condition and recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-40. It also shows the proper medical/separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-40, by reason of an EPTS physical disability. Under the regulatory policy in effect at the time and based on the applicant's approved separation by the MEB, item 11c...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005486
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicable regulation states that an individual would be issued an honorable or a general discharge, as appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016717
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 May 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090016717 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's separation provided for assigning the RE code of 3P to members separated by reason of physical disability and placed on the TDRL. _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001618C070205
His record does include a separation document (DD Form 214) that confirms on 28 May 2004, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-40, by reason of a disability, that existed prior to his service-medical board. By regulation, the RE-3 code is the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-40, by reason of an EPTS disability. The medical examination now provided by the applicant does not call into question...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077937C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In view of the facts of this case, the Board finds that the narrative reason for the applicant’s separation was correct based on the authority for his discharge. Therefore, the Board finds the SSAN recorded in the applicant’s military service record is correct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001775C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that his disability did not exist prior to service (EPTS), that it was service aggravated, and, in effect, that he be granted a medical discharge. The applicant’s military record does not contain his service medical records and the applicant did not provide any medical records or evidence. There are no medical records for the Board to review and the applicant provided no medical records or other evidence to support his claim that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001775C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that his disability did not exist prior to service (EPTS), that it was service aggravated, and, in effect, that he be granted a medical discharge. The applicants military record does not contain his service medical records and the applicant did not provide any medical records or evidence. There are no medical records for the Board to review and the applicant provided no medical records or other evidence to support his claim that...