IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080008096 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, correction of item 6 (Reserve Obligation Termination Date); item 12 (Foreign Service); item 14 (Military Education); item 26 (Separation Code); item 27 (Reentry [RE] Code); and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his reserve obligation termination date is wrong; that item 14 does not list his Infantryman School; that item 12 does not list his foreign service in Hawaii; that he did not have a preexisting condition; that item 27, RE Code, should be change to a 1 or a 2; and item 28 is incorrect.

3.  The applicant states that he was separated from active duty and was told that he had a preexisting condition from a motorcycle accident.  He was in an accident but only had "road rash" - no broken bones, no plates, or pins.  At the time he said he wanted out of the Army but it was for personal reasons, not medical.  He adds that he tried to reenlist in the Active Reserves and Guard four times.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 in support of his request. 

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.  On 24 July 1992, the applicant was administered a medical examination for entry in the Regular Army (RA).  He was diagnosed as having defective vision, both distant and near.  The examination also revealed he had a left knee scar.  He was found qualified for enlistment with an 111121 physical profile.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 24 July 1992, for 8 years, in pay grade E-1, with an established expiration of term of service (ETS) date of 23 July 2000.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 October 1992 for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-2.  He was trained as a light weapons infantryman, in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B. 

4.  The applicant’s records shows that he was assigned to a unit in Hawaii on 31 January 1993.  

5.  On 3 March 1993, the Brigade Surgeon strongly recommended that the applicant be expeditiously separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5.  The surgeon stated the applicant was erroneously inducted into the service with a preexisting chronic pain in both legs and hips secondary to a motorcycle accident he sustained in 1989.  This injury was not disclosed by the applicant at his enlistment medical evaluation on 8 October 1992.  Scarring of the knees was noted by the examining physician; however, the extent of this injury was not fully appreciated.  He was evaluated by the Department of Orthopedics and it was recommended that these injuries were not compatible with active duty service.  He was processed through the reception station at Fort Benning, Georgia, on 9 October 1992.  He made his first medical visit on 16 November with complaints of leg pain.  This was well within the 180 day period required by Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5.  The surgeon stated that the applicant indicated to him that he no longer wished to remain on active duty.  

6.  On 25 March 1993, the applicant’s commander advised the applicant he was taking action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, for not meeting procurement medical fitness standards.
7.  On the same date, the applicant acknowledged his commander's intent to separate him from the Army.  He was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and was informed of the consequences of waiving his rights.  He expressly declined the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 30 March 1993, the applicant's commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, before his ETS and that his service be uncharacterized. It was determined that he was not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when he was accepted for enlistment in the US Army.  He was erroneously enlisted with a preexisting chronic pain of both legs and hips secondary to a motorcycle accident sustained in 1989.  This condition disqualified him for retention.

9.  On 7 April 1993, the separation authority approved a waiver for the rehabilitation transfer of the applicant and his separation from the Army.

10.  On 16 April 1993, separation orders were published for the applicant with a date of release from active duty on 27 April 1993 and a terminal obligation date of 23 June 2000.  He was given a reporting date of 26 April 1993 to the transition point at Fort Lewis, Washington. 

11.  The applicant was released from active duty on 27 April 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  He was furnished an uncharacterized discharge.  On the date of this release from active duty, he had a total of 6 months and 22 days of creditable service.

12.  On 16 April 1993, a 1st Endorsement, to Headquarters, 25th Infantry Division (Light) Orders Number 85-84 was prepared to amend the applicant's terminal date of Reserve obligation from 23 June 2000 to 23 July 1993.  This endorsement failed to show the authority which supported the change to this date. 

13.  Item 6 (Reserve Obligation Termination Date), of his DD Form 214, shows the entry "00 07 23" (23 July 2000), item 12 (Foreign Service) shows the entry "00 02 25" (2 Months and 25 days), item 14 (Military Education) shows the entry "None," item 26 (Separation Code) shows the entry "LFT," item 27 (Reentry Code) shows the entry "3," and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), shows the entry "Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standard-No Disability." 

14.  Item 5 (Overseas Service), of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II), shows that he served in Hawaii from 31 January 1993 to 3 October 1995 which is incorrect. 

15.  The applicant's records contain a copy of a diploma from the United States Army Infantry Center which shows that he successfully completed the Individual Infantry Training Course Number CY (Calendar Year) 3-93, from 19 October 1992 to 29 January 1993, given at Fort Benning, Georgia, on 29 January 1993.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that Soldiers 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, active duty for training, or initial entry training will be separated.  A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the Soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at the time, and the medical condition does not disqualify the soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.  The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.

17.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) established the standard policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that item 6 (Reserve Obligation Termination Date) will be completed to show the Reserve Obligation Termination Date which determined by the number of years the individual enlisted for in the USAR.  It states that item 14 (Military Education) will list formal inservice (full-time attendance) training courses successfully completed during the period of service cover by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed; e.g., medical, dental, electronics, supply, administration, personnel or heavy equipment operations.  This information is to assist the Soldier after separation in job placement and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills will not be listed.

18.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at that time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation showed that the separation program designator "LFT" as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specified the narrative reason for discharge as "Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standard-No Disability," and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator was "Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-11."

19.  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 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the
U. S. Army Reserve (USAR).  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes the basic 
eligibility criteria for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

20.  RE-3 applies to persons not fully qualified for continued Army service and personnel who are discharged, but the disqualification is waivable.

21.  RE-2 applies to Soldiers being separated before completing a contract period of service whose reenlistment is not contemplated.

22.  RE-1 applies to persons completing their service and who are considered qualified to reenter the Army.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 24 July 1992 for a period of 8 years with an established ETS/terminal Reserve obligation date of 23 July 2000.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 October 1992.

2.  The applicant alleges that he did not have a preexisting condition; however, almost immediately after his entry on active duty, he began seeking treatment for pain in his legs and hips.

3.  The applicant was assigned to Hawaii for completion of his basic and advanced training and arrived there on 31 January 1993.  It is logical to believe that the applicant continued to seek medical treatment for his leg and hip pains.

4.  The Brigade surgeon strongly recommended that the applicant be discharged because he had been erroneously inducted with a preexisting condition - chronic pain in both legs and hips secondary to a motorcycle accident he sustained in 1989.  This condition disqualified him for retention.

5.  Based on the brigade surgeon's recommendation, action was taken to separate the applicant because he did not meet procurement medical fitness standards.  

6.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation     635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, for not meeting procurement medical fitness standards.  The applicant was issued a separation code of "LFT" and a RE Code of "3."  The narrative reason entered on his DD Form 214 for his separation was, "Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standard-No Disability."

7.  Based on the evidence, the RE Code, separation code, and narrative reason for his separation are correct and the applicant is not entitled to correction of these data items.

8.  With the applicant's enlistment in the Reserve on 24 July 1992 for a period of 8 years, the applicant's terminal Reserve obligation date was projected to be 23 July 2000.  The Reserve obligation terminal date shown on the DD Form 214 is correct and the applicant is therefore not entitled to a correction of this data item.

9.  The evidence shows that the applicant arrived in Hawaii on 31 January 1993 and was projected to serve there until 3 October 1995; however, he was returned to Fort Lewis on 25 April 1993 for separation on 26 April 1993.  Based on his service in Hawaii, item 12f, of his DD Form 214, which shows he was credited with 2 months and 25 days foreign service is correct and the applicant is therefore not entitled to a correction of his DD Form 214.

10.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant completed the Individual Infantry Training Course, at Fort Benning, on 29 January 1993.  The applicable regulation precludes the listing of training courses for combat skills on the DD Form 214.  The applicant is therefore not entitled to have his Infantry Training Course shown on his DD Form 214.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ___x____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




 _   _______ 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.



























ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080008096



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080008096



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1