IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  3 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130003313 


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 the reason for his discharge be changed from "Failure to Report to [Initial Active Duty Training (IADT)] Phase 1 or 2" to "Medical" and that his discharge be reclassified from uncharacterized to "Medical/Honorable." 

2.  The applicant states he opted for split training.  Several weeks before the end of basic training (BT), he suffered fractures in his right foot.  He graduated from BT in July 2002 and he was placed on a physical profile at Fort Benning, GA before he returned to his unit in the Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG).  His injury did not heal properly and he experienced constant pain over the next year.  His unit wanted to send him to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) to determine his fitness for advanced individual training (AIT) but was unsuccessful in getting an appointment.  He was told the VAARNG did not want to pay for treatments because his injury occurred on active duty.  The MEPS did not want to see him because they claimed he was the VAARNG's responsibility.

3.  Nothing was resolved as neither the VAARNG nor the MEPS wanted to deal with the situation.  He did everything that was asked of him.  In June 2003, his wife accepted a job in New Mexico.  He notified his unit and was told they would release him since it was obvious he would not be able to attend AIT or transfer to the New Mexico Army National Guard (NMARNG) due to his medical issues.  He was told by his unit to expect a medical discharge in the mail.  He eventually received his discharge papers and was surprised to see he was given an 


uncharacterized discharge instead of the promised medical discharge.  He considers this to be not only inaccurate but also unjust.  He was unable to complete his original enlistment due solely to a medical issue that occurred during BT.

4.  The applicant provides 

* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* U.S. Army Infantry School Certificate, dated 26 July 2002
* DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement),dated 6 September 2002
* four Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care)
* a letter from a civilian podiatrist, dated 27 September 2002
* a memorandum from Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC), Fort Benning, GA, dated 25 July 2002
* a memorandum from Company B, 3rd Battalion, 116th Infantry, 29th Infantry Division (Light), dated 6 August 2002
* a memorandum from the VAARNG, dated 30 June 2004
* an undated memorandum from The Adjutant General (TAG), Virginia National Guard 

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.  His DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document) shows he enlisted in the VAARNG on 3 January 2002 for a period of 6 years.  An NGB Form 594-4-R (Annex B - DD Form 4 - Split Training Option), dated 3 January 2002, states that within one year of the last day of his separation (after successful completion of BT) he would be required to again enter initial active duty training (IADT) to qualify in a military occupational specialty.


3.  His DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military Processing Armed Forces of the United States) shows his active duty service date was to be 23 May 2002.  A U.S. Army Infantry School Certificate shows he successfully completed BT on 
26 July 2002. 

4.  Three SF's 600, dated from 11 July 2002 through 24 July 2002, show he was treated for metatarsal stress fractures in his right foot, at Fort Benning, GA.

5.  A memorandum from Headquarters, MEDDAC, Fort Benning, GA, dated 
25 July 2002, Subject:  Medical Treatment Letter of Instruction, stated: 

* after expiration of his active duty training he was in a patient status but not on active duty
* he was diagnosed as having bilateral metatarsal stress fractures 
* his injury was first treated at Martin Army Community Hospital, Fort Benning, GA, on 11 July 2002
* responsibility for medical treatment was transferred to the nearest military facility at his home.  
* his unit would coordinate his next appointment for medical evaluation

6.  On 26 July 2002, he was released from active duty.

7.  An SF 600, dated 7 August 2002, shows he was treated for his bilateral metatarsal stress fractures at Fort Belvoir, VA.

8.  In a letter addressed to the VAARNG, dated 27 September 2002, a civilian podiatrist states he had been asked by the applicant to outline his clinical findings and his prognosis.  The podiatrist recommended rest and heat 30-40 minutes three times a day, gastrocnemius stretching exercises, discontinue marching and running for more than a few hundred yards, and custom molded functional orthoses.

9.  Orders 007-103, dated 7 January 2004, issued by the VAARNG, show he was discharged from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army effective 12 January 2004.

10.  The NGB Form 22 he was issued at the time shows in:

* item 23 (Authority and Reason) "PARA 8-26n NGR 600-200 FAILURE TO REPORT TO IADT PHASE 1 OR 2"
* item 24 (Character of Service) "UNCHARACTERIZED" 

11.  An undated memorandum from TAG, Virginia National Guard, Subject: Characterization of Service Upgrade/Reason for Separation Concerning [Applicant], shows the AG disapproved the applicant's requested changes in his discharge.  TAG further directed that the existing characterization of service and reason for separation (failure to report to IADT 1 or 2) remain in the applicant's file.  

12.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve
Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 2-11, states entry level status service will be described as uncharacterized if separation processing is initiated while a Soldier is in an entry level status.  The Glossary of Terms defines entry level status for ARNG and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Soldiers and states that entry level status begins upon enlistment in the ARNG or USAR.  For Soldiers ordered to IADT for the split or alternate training option, it terminates 90 days after beginning Phase II AIT.  Soldiers completing Phase I remain in entry level status until 90 days after beginning Phase II AIT.

13.  Army Regulation 601-25 (Delay in Reporting for and Exemption from Active Duty, Initial Active Duty for Training, and Reserve Forces Duty) prescribes policies and procedures for requesting and granting delays in and exemptions from entry on active duty for certain categories of officers and enlisted personnel. 

	a.  When a member of the alternate training program is medically disqualified after completing Phase I BT but before entering Phase II of IADT, the following procedures will apply.  Members who are temporarily medically disqualified will be delayed from AIT as prescribed in Chapter 5 (Peacetime Medical Fitness Procedures).  Members with medical disqualifications curable within less than 
6 months will be retained in the unit and granted excused absence from unit training.  The unit commander will notify the appropriate MEPS to cancel the current Phase II training reservation.  A new training reservation will be made within 10 days after the individual is found qualified for duty.  Temporarily disqualified members of the ARNG will be assigned per current National Guard directives.  

	b.  The unit commander will initiate action to have members discharged who are found permanently medically disqualified under procurement standards.

14.  Chapter 6 (formerly chapter 8) of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) provides the reasons, applicability, codes and board requirements for administrative separation or discharge from the Reserve of the Army, the State ARNG only, or both.  

	a.  The regulation provides for the discharge of Soldiers who are not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards.  

	b.  The regulation also provides for the discharge of Soldiers who fail to report for active duty when ordered.

15.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, retention and separation.  Stress fracture is not listed as an injury that would make an individual unfit because of physical disability.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the reason for his discharge should be changed to "medical" and his character of service should be changed from uncharacterized to "Medical/Honorable."  

2.  The evidence of record shows that, after he completed Phase I of IADT, he was released from active duty in a patient status with a diagnosis of bilateral metatarsal stress fractures.  There is no evidence indicating he was not expected to recover from his stress fractures, and there is no evidence that medical personnel or his commander had reason to believe that he was not medically qualified under medical fitness standards.  Further, he has provided no documentary evidence indicating he was unable to report for Phase II of IADT due to an ongoing medical condition.  In the absence of documentation showing he was not medically qualified, it must be presumed that the reason for his discharge is correct.  

3.  Since he had not begun Phase II AIT, he remained in an entry level status, which required that his service be uncharacterized.  Therefore, his uncharacterized discharge is appropriate.  

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)                                         AR20130003313





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130003313



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1