BOARD DATE: 13 April 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100024603
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, his honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.
2. The applicant states:
* Items 13a (Character of Service) and 32 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) need to be corrected to show an honorable medical discharge
* He feels his discharge is in error because it states he was honorably discharged
* After completing 5 or 6 weeks of boot training he was sent to have his eyes examined and during the examination it was determined his eyes no longer met the U.S. Army or military standards
* Between the time he took a physical to enter the service, which he passed without problems, and the time his eyes were checked something apparently happened to his eyes
* For this reason he needs his DD Form 214 corrected to state the exact reason he was discharged
* He was discharged because of his vision
3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 in support of his application.
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. On 31 July 1965, he was found qualified for enlistment with a physical profile of 111121. Item 24 (Eyes - General) of his Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 31 July 1965, shows he was rated normal. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 August 1965 for a period of 3 years.
3. A clinical record, dated 1 September 1965, shows he was diagnosed with astigmatism, mixed - existed prior to service (EPTS). It was determined he did not meet the procurement standards for induction and it was recommended he be seen by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for consideration of separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205.
4. On 1 September 1965, he requested discharge for physical disability. He indicated he had been notified that based upon preliminary findings he was considered unfit for retention in the military service on account of a physical disability which was considered to have existed prior to 16 August 1965. He elected not to exercise his right to have his case considered by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). He acknowledged that he understood his separation would be without disability retirement or disability severance pay.
5. On 3 September 1965, he underwent a separation physical examination and he was found not to be qualified for induction with a physical profile of 111141. Item 24 of his SF 88, dated 3 September 1965, shows he was rated abnormal.
6. On 13 September 1965, an MEB found him medically unfit for further military service in accordance with current medical standards due to astigmatism, high, mixed - EPTS. The MEB recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205. On 14 September 1965, the applicant concurred with the PEB's findings and recommendation and waived a formal hearing.
7. On 4 October 1965, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205. The separation program number (SPN) 375 that is shown on his DD Form 214 indicates he was discharged because he did not meet medical fitness standards at time of enlistment. He had served 1 month and 19 days of total active service.
8. Item 13a of his DD Form 214 shows the entry "HONORABLE." Item 32 of his DD Form 214 shows, among other entries, the entry "Item 11c - Discharge because of not meeting medical fitness standards at time of enlistment."
9. Army Regulation 635-205, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for convenience of the government. Paragraph 2 stated, in pertinent part, that separation of enlisted personnel was the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and would be effected only by his authority. Except as delegated by these regulations or by special Department of the Army directives, the discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for convenience of the Government would be at the Secretarys discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him. Such authority may be given either in an individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified in such order.
10. 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. Under the laws governing the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System, Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically unfitting disabilities must meet several line of duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits. The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or was the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training.
11. Army Regulation 635-40 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 are congenital malformations and hereditary conditions or similar conditions in which medical authorities are in such consistent and universal agreement as to their cause and time of origin that no additional confirmation is needed to support the conclusion that they existed prior to military service.
12. The National Institutes of Health internet cite medlineplus.gov defines astigmatism as a common type of refractive error. It is usually found during a comprehensive dilated eye exam.
13. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contentions were noted. However, in 1965 an MEB found him medically unfit for further military service in accordance with current medical fitness standards and determined his eye condition existed prior to his entry into military service. His astigmatism would not have been discovered during his entrance physical examination as comprehensive eye examinations are not conducted then. Nevertheless, it is a common eye condition and there is no evidence to show that something "happened" to his eyes during his short time in the service. Medical principles indicate that it always existed and was just discovered while he was in the service. He concurred with these proceedings and requested to be discharged from the Army.
2. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for a medical discharge.
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) AR20100024603
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100024603
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005806
The applicant contends the Board made its decision based on inaccurate information: * his eye examination was normal for his entrance examination and abnormal for his separation examination * he denies that he requested to be discharged from the military * he did not waive his right to have his case considered by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) * he did not concur with the Medical Evaluation Boards (MEBs) findings and recommendations * his medical condition did not exist prior to service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004774
The applicant states: * He signed his DD Form 214 when he was discharged but he never received it until 2011 * His DD Form 214 shows the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar but he was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge * He went through basic training and he completed Cook School * The entry in item 32 pertaining to item 11c (Reason and Authority) makes no sense, is completely untrue, and totally inaccurate * He was discharged due to kidney failure,...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00342
(2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.” The Board determined that only the left foot hammer toe condition is within its purview in this case. The single unfitting condition was the painful, persistent left hammer toe condition after surgical correction. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C....
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02756
The chronic conjunctivitis and left eye condition(s), characterized as “chronic bilateral conjunctivitis/blepharitis” and “traumatic glaucoma of left eye,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.Also identified and forwarded by the MEB were five other conditions (see rating chart below), designated as medically acceptable.The Informal PEBadjudicated “chronic conjunctivitis”as unfitting, rated 10%.The remaining conditions were determined to be not unfitting.The CI...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002375
The applicant states he was discharged for weight control failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 18, but he injured his left eye in January 2005. b. Paragraph 3-16e states vision that cannot be corrected with ordinary spectacle lenses to at least 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye or 20/30 in one eye and 20/200 in the other eye, or 20/20 in one eye and 20/800 in the other eye are causes for referral to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018215
The applicant's request for reconsideration of his previous case, in which he contends the Board incorrectly stated his medical conditions and the reason for his discharge, was carefully considered. On 10 January 1972, he was determined to be permanently unfit for duty by reason of physical disability, removed from the TDRL, and discharged from the service with entitlement to severance pay. Since there is no historical evidence of his VA compensation awards and effective dates, there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016789
The MEB's medically-acceptable conditions listed above met medical retention standards and were found to not be unfitting, either independently or in combination with any other conditions. The PEB recommended a combined 10-percent disability rating and separation with severance pay. Percentage ratings reflect the severity of the Soldier's medical condition at the time of rating.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001698
On 16 May 2003, an MEB convened, and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found the applicant was diagnosed as having the medically-unacceptable condition of seizure disorder. His MEB indicated that he had only one condition that did not meet medical retention standards: seizure disorder. The applicant and his counsel provided insufficient evidence that the applicant was diagnosed with the conditions of PTSD and TBI, and/or that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019747
The physician's review and analysis of the TSGLI application is summarized below: * the physician thoroughly reviewed the case in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) which contained more medical notes and documents than the applicant submitted in support of his claim * only one eye examination not prior to the claimed traumatic event was recorded in AHLTA, written on 20 August 2007, documenting his hypermetropia (one eye with significantly worse vision than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021096
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was medically retired by reason of physical disability upon his release from active duty in...