IN THE CASE OF

		BOARD DATE:	    4 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005806 


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 reconsideration of his previous request to change his 
honorable discharge to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is providing new arguments, which should show why he should have been medically discharged from the Army.  The applicant states he complained of having pain behind his eyes while he was in basic training and he was ordered to have his eyes examined.  After a military medical doctor examined his eyes, he was informed that he was going to be discharged because of his eyesight.  The applicant further states the military medical doctor coerced him into signing documents.  If he had not signed them he would have been sent to his company commander to make him sign them.

3.  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 Board’s (MEB’s) findings and recommendations
* his medical condition did not exist prior to service (EPTS) and it was aggravated while in the military

* he was 17 years of age at the time and he did not have anyone to represent him
* he was taken advantage of due to false documentation

4.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter, dated 23 October 2012; and page two of Special Order 235, dated 28 September 1965, issued by the U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Ord, CA.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100024603, on 13 April 2011.

2.  The applicant's contentions are new arguments that will be considered by the Board.  

3.  A Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 31 July 1965, shows the applicant took his initial medical examination prior to entering the military.  Item 24 (Eyes-General) shows the entry "Normal."  

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 August 1965.  He did not successfully complete basic training. 

5.  An SF 502 (Clinical Record - Narrative Summary), dated 1 September 1965, shows the applicant was diagnosed with astigmatism, mixed, by a military medical doctor.  The doctor indicated the applicant's condition was not incurred in the line of duty and it was EPTS.  The doctor stated the applicant commented that he had a history of progressive decrease in vision in both eyes for seven years prior to entry into the military.  

6.  The military medical doctor also stated the applicant did not meet the procurement standards for “induction” and he had been erroneously “inducted” into the military.  He recommended the applicant go before an MEB for consideration for separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205 (Discharge and Release, Convenience of the Government).  

7.  A memorandum, dated 1 September 1965:  Subject: Discharge for the Convenience of the Government, shows the applicant requested he be discharged for physical disability.  He acknowledged 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 and which appeared to be not incident to, or aggravated by, prior or subsequent military service.  

8.  The applicant acknowledged that it had been explained to him that he was entitled as a matter of right to the same processing as any other member of the Army who is separated for disability, which included consideration of his case by a PEB.  

9.  The applicant also acknowledged that it had been fully explained to him that as a result of his application and provided that the approved findings of a medical board corroborate the preliminary finds concerning his unfitness, he may be discharged for physical disability without further hearing.  He understood that such separation would be without disability retirement or disability severance pay; however, it did not preclude him from applying for benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  The applicant elected not to exercise his right and he authenticated the request with his signature.

10.  There is no evidence in the applicant's military personnel records that indicates he was coerced into signing documents by military medical personnel.
  
11.  On 3 September 1965, the applicant underwent a separation physical under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205.  Item 24 of his SF Form 88 shows abnormal - astigmatism, high, mixed.  Item 77b (Examinee) shows he was not qualified for “induction.”

12.  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.  

13.  On 14 September 1965, the appropriate authority approved the finding and recommendation.  The applicant concurred with the MEB's findings and recommendation and waived a formal hearing and he authenticated the document with his signature.

14.  Special Order 235, dated 28 September 1965, issued by the U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Ord, CA, shows the applicant was discharged by reason of physical disability. 

15.  On 4 October 1965, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-205 by reason of "Discharge because of not meeting medical fitness standards at the time of enlistment" with a characterization of service of honorable.  He completed 1 month and 19 days of creditable active duty service.

16.  Army Regulation 635-205, in effect at the time, prescribed the separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the Government.  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 the convenience of the Government would be at the Secretary's discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him.  Such authority could be given either in an individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified in such order.

17.  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.

18.  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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request that his honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge was carefully considered and it was determined there is insufficient evidence to support his request.

2.  The applicant contends his eye examination was normal for his entrance physical and abnormal for his separation physical.  Evidence of record shows two weeks after his entry in the military a military medical doctor diagnosed him with preexisting astigmatism, high, mixed.  

3.  The record clearly shows his entrance examination did not detect an unfitting condition.  The fact that the condition was missed is not evidence that it was not present.  In addition, there is no evidence in the applicant's military personnel records that shows military medical personnel coerced him into signing any documents.

4.  The applicant contends that he did not request to be discharged and he did not waive consideration his case by a PEB.  The applicant contends he did not concur with the MEB findings and recommendations.  The record shows otherwise:

	a.  On 1 September 1965, the applicant was recommended for an MEB to consider him for separation due to his medical condition, of astigmatism, high, mixed - EPTS.  On September 1965, the applicant requested to be discharged for the convenience of the government due to his physical disability and he waived consideration of his case by a PEB.  

	b.  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.  The applicant concurred with the MEB's findings and recommendation and he waived a formal hearing.  The record clearly shows the applicant requested discharge, waived a PEB, and occurred with the MEB findings and recommendation.  He has provided no evidence supporting his condition that he did not make the decisions.

5.  The applicant contends his medical condition was not EPTS and it was aggravated while in the military.  However, evidence shows he admitted to having history of progressive decrease in vision in both eyes for seven years prior to his entry into the military.  

6.  The applicant contends at that time he was 17 years of age, he did not have anyone to represent him, and he was taken advantage of with false documentation.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows he was taken advantage because of his being young at the time.  

7.  The applicant provided page two of Special Order 235, dated 28 September 1965, issued by the U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Ord, CA.  The order shows the applicant was discharged by reason of physical disability, after being diagnosed with astigmatism, high, mixed, EPTS.  He understood that such separation would be without disability retirement or disability severance pay.  It has been over 46 years since he was discharged with less than two months in the military.  The applicant has not satisfactorily proven or provided evidence that shows his condition did not exist before enlisting in the military.
8.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100024603, dated 13 April 2011.



      _______ _   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20120005806



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005806



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1