IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 4 December 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120010209
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, amendment of his narrative reason for separation.
2. The applicant states he injured his right ankle in basic training. His left ankle is the one he sprained when he was 16 years old; therefore, he does not believe he entered military service fraudulently.
3. The applicant provides military medical records 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. The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 March 1997 and he was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to attend basic combat training.
3. The applicant provides medical treatment records showing he received treatment for a right ankle sprain and knee problems in April and May 1997.
4. The applicant's record is void of the specific medical board documents related to his separation processing. It does contain a memorandum from his unit commander confirming he counseled the applicant regarding his options in regard to a Trainee Medical Retention Board and that the applicant elected separation. It contains a memorandum from the applicant's battalion commander recommending his separation. The record also contains a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that identifies the authority and reason for his discharge.
5. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 16 June 1997 by reason of "failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards" under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200(Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel). It also shows he completed a total of 2 months and 21 days of active military service.
6. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the authority for the separation of enlisted members from active duty. Paragraph 5-11 provides for the separation of personnel who do not meet procurement medical fitness standards. 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 or active duty for training may be separated. Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty. Such findings will result in an Entrance Physical Standards Board.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request to change the narrative reason for his separation has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The applicant's record is void of Entrance Physical Standards Board proceedings. However, it does contain memoranda from his unit commander and battalion commander that confirm the applicant underwent processing by a Trainee Medical Retention Board and that he agreed to separation based on failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.
3. The applicant's record also contains a DD Form 214 that confirms the authority and reason for his separation. Absent any evidence of error or injustice, there is a presumption of regularity attached to this document. The evidence of record and independent evidence submitted by the applicant are not sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of regularity attached to the DD Form 214. As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting 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 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) AR20120010209
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120010209
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017474
A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form) Request for Separation or Release from Active Duty under the provisions of paragraph 5-9, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), dated 21 July 1971, shows he voluntarily requested discharge for physical reasons which existed prior to his induction in the Army and entry on active duty. Chapter 2 outlines physical standards for enlistment, appointment and induction and states, in pertinent part, that enlisted Soldiers identified...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001179C070205
On 30 November 1976, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39, Trainee Discharge Program. On 8 December 1976, the applicant completed a separation physical examination. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was separated under the Trainee Discharge Program for an inability to learn and a lack of motivation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007602
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, change of her reentry eligibility (RE) code on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from RE-3 to a more favorable code so she could reenter military service. Her RE code was assigned based on the fact she was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards - not erroneous...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020995
A drill instructor stepped on his leg to flatten it and the applicant told him the leg was injured and hurt. e. While in AIT, he had another leg injury when a tire fell on his leg. The evidence of record confirms that on 16 December 1982 an EPSBD found the applicant's condition of left thigh pain existed prior to his entry into military service and recommended he be discharged for failing to meet medical procurement standards.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012362
A medical proceeding conducted by an EPSB, 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, the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at the time of enlistment, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001124
Counsel requests, in effect, correction of the applicant's disability findings to add the following medical conditions to his existing unfitting condition and increase his disability rating for medical retirement: * ankle instability * knee instability 2. e. At no time was the applicant's knee or ankle injury considered by the MEB for referral to the PEB. Counsel provided: a. medical records, dated in 2000, which show the applicant sprained his right ankle while walking/running and he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011424
His DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), dated 18 December 1996, shows in item 8 (after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examination, the board found that he was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition existed prior to service. Accordingly, he was discharged from active duty on 31 January 1997, under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005345
The applicant states in a letter written by her husband to a United States Senator that she was discharged in 1997 with the narrative reason for separation listed as "personality disorder." The applicant again tried to enlist. The applicant was evaluated by a medical doctor trained in psychiatry and was determined to have a "personality disorder not otherwise specified."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007338
The applicant requests his military records be changed to show he was discharged for a reason other than "failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards." On 28 October 2004, an EPSBD found the applicant medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition existed prior to service. The EPSBD further found the applicant did meet retention standards under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013011
The applicant requests correction of her National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) to show her character of service as honorable vice uncharacterized in order to secure benefits. 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...