IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	        1 September 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090005295 


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 that the records of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that he was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the FSM's DD Form 214 was originally prepared to reflect that he was discharged by reason of a service-connected disability; however, his DD Form 214 was altered by erasing with "Wite-Out" the reason and authority for discharge.  She goes on to state that the FSM abided by his contract; however, the Army has failed to honor their commitment for a service-connected discharge and she has been unable to receive the benefits her husband earned.  She also states that the FSM's recruiter in Richmond, Virginia, lied to him when he assured him that he would not have to do basic training exercises after the FSM told him that he had leg problems.

3.  The applicant provides a four-page letter explaining her application, a copy of her and the FSM's marriage license, a copy of the FSM's death certificate, a copy of the FSM's DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract - Armed Forces of the United States), five pages of documents from the FSM's medical records, a copy of Medical Board Proceedings pertaining to the FSM, a copy of the FSM's DD Form 214 showing the reason and authority for separation, and a copy of the FSM's DD Form 214 with the reason and authority erased.



EVIDENCE OF RECORD:

1.  The FSM was born on 11 March 1936 and he enlisted in the United States Navy in Baltimore, Maryland on 4 September 1953 and served on active duty until he was honorably released from active duty on 6 March 1957 due to the expiration of his term of service.

2.  On 14 May 1970, the FSM enlisted in the Regular Army in Richmond, Virginia, at the age of 34 for a period of 3 years.  He was transferred to a basic training company at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on 25 May 1970.

3.  On 28 May 1970, the FSM went on sick call complaining of pain to his right ankle and left knee.  He indicated that he had a history of old trauma to the left knee.  He was referred to the orthopedic and podiatry clinics for evaluation.

4.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the FSM's discharge are not present in the available records because they were loaned to the Department of Veterans Affairs in Roanoke, Virginia.  However, on 1 June 1970, the FSM submitted a request for discharge in which he requested discharge because he felt that he was erroneously enlisted when he did not meet the medical fitness standards for enlistment.

5.  Documents provided by the applicant show that a clinical record was prepared on 11 June 1970 which indicates that the FSM's left knee was crushed by the wheels of a camper trailer in 1966 which required surgery and hospitalization for 1 1/2 years.  The examining physician indicated that the FSM should be referred to a medical board as he was unfit for enlistment and although he was fit for retention, he was erroneously enlisted and should be separated.

6.  Medical Board Proceedings were prepared on 11 June 1970 which indicate that the FSM was not present for the proceedings and did not present any views in his own behalf.  The medical board found that he was medically fit for further military service under current fitness standards.  However, he was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the left knee, secondary to an old trauma, and probable stress reaction of the right tibial plateau and right calcaneus.  The board determined that the medical condition existed prior to entry on active duty, that the cause of the condition was not incident to service, and that it was not aggravated by active duty.

7.  On 18 June 1970, the FSM was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-9, due to failure to meet medical fitness standards at time of enlistment.  He had served 1 month and 5 days of net service during this period.  The FSM was provided the original of his DD Form 214 and Copy 2, the record copy of the DD Form 214, with the narrative reason for separation altered (with correction tape).

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, in effect at the time, provided the criteria for the separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment.  It stated, in pertinent part, that medical proceedings must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authorities within 6 months of initial active duty for training which would have temporarily or permanently disqualified the member for entry into military service had it been detected at the time of enlistment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the FSM’s administrative discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the FSM’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate under the circumstances and the applicant has failed to show otherwise.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  However, they do not coincide with the evidence of record and the information the FSM provided at the time he arrived at and was treated at Fort Campbell.

4.  The applicant's contention that the FSM's DD Form 214 was altered to delete his reason and authority for separation from a separation by reason of service-connected disability has been noted and found to lack merit.  The record copy of the DD Form 214 is still present in the FSM's official records and still contains the correction tape over the reason and authority block.  However, it can still be read through the tape and it clearly shows that he was discharged for not meeting medical fitness standards at the time of enlistment.

5.  It is also noted that at the time, it was common practice to issue the individual Soldier the original of the DD Form 214 and that the record copy would be taped over if the individual Soldier indicated he or she desired a copy without the reason and authority for separation, which individuals could then use to show employers or when they do not want the reason and authority for their discharge to be known.  Due to the change in technology, that practice is no longer required when a Soldier requests such a copy.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

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)                                         AR20090005295



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090005295



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1