BOARD DATE:	  19 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130007505 


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 correction of his records to show he was medically discharged.

2.  The applicant states he broke his hand in a training exercise and it would not heal properly.  On 15 September 1982, after a period of rehabilitation, he was told by his company commander that he was being medically discharged.  His separation document shows the reason for his discharge was he "did not meet procurement medical fitness standards" and this prevents him from obtaining healthcare from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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 U.S. Army Reserve on 22 March 1982.  He further enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 April 1982 for a period of 3 years.

3.  A DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), dated 20 August 1982, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an EPTS (existed prior to service) condition.  His "right fifth proximal phalangeal fracture healed with marked residual ulnar deviation and flexion/extension contractures."

	a.  A brief summary of the condition shows "EPTS right hand boxer fracture and EPTS proximal phalangeal (ulnarly deviated) fracture of right fifth finger.  Patient reinjured EPTS boxer fracture site 26 June 1982 and then healed 27 July 1982."

   b.  A brief summary of past medical history shows "EPTS right hand fractures poorly healed with ulnar deviation of right fifth proximal phalanx and limited flexion of right fifth finger and limited extension."

   c.  The board found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment; that he did not meet medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3; and a waiver was not recommended.

	d.  The medical approving authority approved the findings of the board.

4.  On 24 August 1982, the applicant was counseled by his commanding officer and informed of the medical findings of the EPSBD.  The applicant concurred with the proceedings and requested retention on active duty.  The commander also recommended the applicant be retained.

5.  On 9 September 1982, the discharge authority denied the applicant's request for retention and approved the separation action.

6.  The applicant's DD Form 214, as corrected by a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 24 November 1982, shows the applicant entered active duty on 6 April 1982 and he was honorably discharged on 15 September 1982.  He completed 5 months and 8 days of net active service this period.  It also shows in:

   a.  item 25 (Separation Authority):  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-7c(1);
	b.  item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation):  "Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards"; and

	c.  item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated):  the applicant signed the document.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 (Separation for Convenience of the Government), paragraph 5-7c, 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 entry on active duty or initial active duty for training may be separated.  Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty and will result in an EPSBD, which must be convened within the Soldier's first 6 months of active duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was medically discharged because he broke his hand in a training exercise and was told by his company commander that he was being medically discharged; however, his DD Form 214 shows the reason he was discharged was that he
"did not meet procurement medical fitness standards."

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant entered active duty on 6 April 1982 and he reinjured an EPTS right hand boxer fracture on 26 June 1982.

3.  Records show an EPSBD was convened within the applicant's first 5 months of active duty and found his condition was medically disqualifying under procurement medical fitness standards.  Records also show his commander counseled him on the medical findings and the reason for his separation, and that the applicant concurred with the EPSBD proceedings (emphasis added).  Prior to the applicant completing 180 days of active service, the separation authority directed the applicant be discharged.

4.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-7c(1), based on being not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards prior to entry on active duty was in compliance with all requirements of law and applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  In addition, the type of discharge directed and the narrative reason shown on the applicant's DD Form 214 are appropriate and correct.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for 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 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)                                         AR20130007505



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130007505



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1