IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  9 December 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006838 


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 her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show she was honorably separated from the Army with a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states a doctor and respiratory therapist at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, evaluated her condition and determined that it limited her ability to continue to serve in the Army.  During the discharge process she was placed in a room with about eight other Soldiers and they were all told by military personnel to mark "uncharacterized" on their forms to be discharged from the military.  The explanation of the type of discharge was not provided to them at the time.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DA Form 4707-C (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings).

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 Army National Guard (ARNG) of the United States (ARNGUS) and Louisiana ARNG on 20 August 1997 for a period of 
8 years.

3.  Military Entrance Processing Station, New Orleans, LA, Orders 163-13, dated 20 August 1997, ordered the applicant to initial active duty for training (ADT) on 11 May 1998.

4.  The applicant's EPSBD Proceedings show, on 12 May 1998, the applicant was diagnosed with reactive airway disease after she complained of chest tightness, shortness of breath, wheezing and a cough with increased activity or with training in grassy areas.

	a.  It also shows the condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and the applicant did not meet medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).

	b.  On 26 May 1998, the board recommended the applicant be separated for failure to meet medical procurement standards.  The medical approving authority approved the findings of the board on 30 May 1998.

5.  On 5 June 1998, the applicant was counseled by her commanding officer on options regarding the board's recommendation for separation.  She concurred with the recommendation and requested discharge without delay.

6.  On 12 June 1998, the discharge authority approved the applicant's separation action.

7.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows she entered active duty on 11 May 1998, she was released from ADT on 17 June 1998 with uncharacterized service, and returned to the ARNG.  She had completed 1 month and 7 days of active duty service this period.  It also shows in:
   
   a.  item 24 (Character of Service):  "Uncharacterized";

   b.  item 25 (Separation Authority):  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11;

   c.  item 26 (Separation Code):  "JFW" (Failed Medical/Physical/ Procurement Standards); and
	d.  item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation):  "Failed to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards."

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

   a.  Chapter 5 (Separation for Convenience of the Government), 
paragraph 5-11, 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 ADT for initial entry 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.

	b.  Chapter 3 (Character of Service/Description of Service), paragraph 3-7a, provides, in part, the honorable characterization may be awarded to a Soldier upon completion of his/her period of enlistment or period for which called or ordered to active duty or ADT, or where required under specific reason for separation, unless an entry-level status separation (uncharacterized) is warranted.

	c.  Section II (Terms) of the glossary states that entry-level status for Reserve Soldiers begins upon enlistment in the U.S. Army Reserve or ARNGUS and, for Soldiers ordered to ADT for one continuous period, it terminates 180 days after beginning training.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Records show that immediately after entering active duty the applicant was diagnosed with reactive airway disease and she was counseled on an EPTS discharge.

2.  Records also show an EPSBD was convened within the applicant's first month of active duty and found her condition was medically disqualifying under procurement medical fitness standards.  She concurred with the EPSBD proceedings and requested discharge without delay.  Prior to the applicant completing 180 days of active service, the separation authority directed the applicant be separated from the Army.  The regulatory guidance states that an entry-level status Soldier's separation will be "uncharacterized."

3.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, 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 her rights.  In addition, the type of discharge directed, narrative reason, and character of service shown on the applicant's DD Form 214 are appropriate and correct.

4.  In view of all 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)                                         AR20140006838



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006838



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1