BOARD DATE: 13 June 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120020647
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, correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show a more favorable separation authority and narrative reason for separation that will afford her veterans' benefits.
2. The applicant states she has been unable to use her GI Bill because of the classification she received at the time of her discharge. She states she was told she would be able to use the GI Bill that she paid into monthly or she would get her money back that she paid in.
3. The applicant provides no additional evidence.
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 10 January 2006 for a period of 4 years. She completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and was transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, to undergo advanced individual training.
3. On 22 May 2006 an Entrance Physical Standards Board determined the applicant had a pre-existing medical condition of major depressive disorder with two prior suicide attempts. The board noted that she required psychiatric treatment for greater than 6 months and hospitalization prior to enlistment. Accordingly, she did not meet entrance medical standards and the board recommended her discharge.
4. The applicant concurred with the proceedings and requested to be discharged from the Army without delay.
5. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 5 July 2006 and directed characterization of her service as honorable.
6. Accordingly, she was honorably discharged on 10 July 2006 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-11, due to having failed medical/physical procurement standards. She was issued a separation code of "JFW" and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3."
7. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, provides the criteria for separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment. It states 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. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant's rights.
2. The applicant was issued the proper separation authority and narrative reason for separation commensurate with the basis for her discharge and she has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that and error or injustice exists in her case.
3. In regard to the applicant's issues regarding the use of the GI Bill, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers that program under the laws that govern that agency and this Board has no authority or jurisdiction over that agency.
4. Any issues regarding eligibility for benefits should be directed to the VA as the Board does not have the authority to address issues handled by an agency outside of the Department of the Army.
5. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant her request.
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) AR20120020647
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120020647
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020049
The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as follows: * show her prior service * upgrade her uncharacterized discharge * change the narrative reason for separation 2. As a result, in the absence of a breakout of her USNR active and inactive service, there is insufficient evidence to correct her Army DD Form 214 to show her prior Navy service. d. Her narrative reason for separation was assigned based on the fact that she was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020441
The applicant provides: * self-authored statements * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) effective 16 October 2006 * Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) Form 1030 (Notification of Patient's Medical Status), dated 12 July 2007 * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 19 September 2007 * DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), dated 16 October 2007 * DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings), dated 4 December 2008 * DA Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000902C070205
The applicant requests that her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show she was separated by reason of medical retirement (asthma with a 60 percent disability rating); to change her uncharacterized description of service to honorable; and to add her awards for marksmanship badges for the M16 rifle, the hand grenade, and the bayonet. On 7 July 2005, the VA awarded the applicant a 30 percent disability rating for her asthma. Medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059144C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 June 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge to honorable and found that the reason for discharge and characterization of service were proper and equitable. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was separated after completing just over 4 months of active military service and therefore, her...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005385
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a letter from the Office of Veterans Service, dated 12 March 2013, a copy of a letter from the Veterans Affairs, dated 2 March 2012, and copy of her DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004968C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that the separation code and narrative reason for separation for her period of active duty with the U.S. Army be changed to acknowledge that her injury occurred in basic training and was not a pre-existing injury. The 42 documents, dated from 12 January 1998 through 15 March 2004 and completed prior to her entry on active duty in the RA, provide no evidence of an injury to the applicant's left leg. The documentary evidence provided by the applicant fails...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010468
It was recommended the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) based on his EPTS condition. Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by an appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty for the Regular Army that: (1) would have permanently or temporarily...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090003722
Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/21 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090003722 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087457C070212
The applicant states that her [enlistment] contract indicates that all her college loans would be repaid, including her Gate and signature loans; however, this was not the case. • A copy of her 15 November 2002 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and a copy of reassignment orders directing her discharge on that date because of her physical disability. • Copy of a Gate student loan application and multi-disbursement notes.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016567
The applicant submitted a copy of her SSA decision record which was not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board. Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides 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...