IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110012579 


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 item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to show he was separated due to a physical disability.

2.  The applicant states he passed all physical training until he injured his wrist.  He contends that he suffers from loss of motion of his right wrist due to an injury that occurred while on active duty.  After serving for 17 months, he was no longer medically fit to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test due to the injury.  He also suffers from right wrist pain daily.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1982 and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Policeman) after completion of initial entry training.

3.  His complete service medical records are not available for review.  However, his Official Military Personnel File includes a Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 19 November 1981, which makes reference to his right wrist in item 74 (Summary of Defects and Diagnoses).

4.  A Chronological Record of Medical Care indicates he broke his right wrist four times while in high school and that his right wrist did not heal properly.

5.  A DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings) dated 
7 November 1983, shows he was found medically unfit due to pain and stiffness of his right wrist which existed prior to service (EPTS).

6.  A Clinical Record - Narrative Summary indicates he injured his wrist in January 1981 when he was involved in a bicycle accident and was treated with a brace.  He again injured his wrist while playing basketball, and again while playing football approximately 10 weeks prior to entering active duty.

7.  The MEB recommended his separation from the service due to his EPTS condition which was not considered to be service aggravated.  The applicant did not appeal the findings of the MEB and indicated he did not desire to continue on active duty.

8.  On 29 November 1983, he requested to be discharged based on the findings and recommendations of the MEB.  He indicated in his request that he had been informed and understood he was entitled to the same consideration and processing as any other member of the Army separated for physical disability including consideration of his case by the adjudicative system established by the Secretary of the Army for processing disability separations.  However, he elected not to exercise that right.  He also indicated he understood that if his application was approved, he would be separated by reason of EPTS physical disability.

9.  On 23 December 1983, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 
5-11.  Item 28 of his DD Form 214 shows the entry "Did not meet procurement medical fitness standards - no disability."



10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11, of the regulation in effect at the time, provided 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 entrance on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training would be separated.  A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within four 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 that time, and the medical condition did not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3.  As an exception, members who had completed basic training or eight weeks of one station unit training and met the above requirements, but requested to complete the period of service for which enlisted, could be retained in the service.  Such members were required to sign a statement electing to complete the period of service, in spite of his/her eligibility for separation under this paragraph.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the narrative reason for his separation should be corrected to show he was discharged due to a disability has been carefully considered.

2.  He contends that he suffers from right wrist problems due to an injury that occurred while on active duty; however, the available evidence clearly indicates his condition existed prior to his entry on active duty and there is insufficient evidence to substantiate that his medical condition was aggravated by his active duty service.

3.  Although he did not meet procurement medical fitness standards, it is presumed he met medical retention standards and as a result, he would not have been eligible for referral to a physical evaluation board or disposition through medical channels.

4.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  He was separated from active duty for reasons other than physical disability.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant the requested relief.


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)                                         AR20110012579



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110012579



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1