BOARD DATE:	  28 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140017054 


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, the following corrections of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show in:

* Item 16 (High School Graduate or Equivalent) an "X" in the "Yes" block
* Item 24 (Character of Service) a change of his uncharacterized to honorable
* Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) a separation under the provisions of chapter 2

2.  The applicant states he is a college graduate and item 16 of his DD Form 214 states "No" for high school equivalent.  Item 24 of this DD Form 214 states "Uncharacterized."  It was his understanding that he would receive an honorable discharge.  Thirty years ago he did a dumb thing by not having counsel to advise him that he was doing the wrong thing.  Currently, because of that mistake he can't apply for any benefits.  He is hoping his records can be corrected to show his chapter 2 discharge that he should have received instead of the "Uncharacterized" that he received.

3.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings)
* DD Form 214 (2 copies)
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
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 provide in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of the cases 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 sufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations.

2.  The applicant's records contain the following:

   a.  An Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination) which shows he underwent a medical examination on 1 June 1981 for the purpose of his enlistment in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Program.  The form shows he was found to be medically qualified.

   b.  An SF 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 1 June 1981, wherein he stated that he was in good health, had a lazy eye, had sustained a head injury as a result of an automobile accident in August 1980, and had undergone eye surgery.

   c.  An SF 600 (Health Record – Chronological Record of Medical Care) which shows he was seen and received treatment in the ROTC Troop Medical Clinic on 18 June 1981 for pain in both feet.  

3.  On 9 July 1981, he successfully completed the ROTC Basic Camp.

4.  He enlisted in the USAR, as a cadet, on 21 August 1982, for 6 years.

5.  On 1 July 1983, he was notified of his disenrollment from the ROTC Program for failing to satisfactorily complete advanced camp and his discharge from the USAR effective 30 June 1983 unless he indicated his desire to enlist in a Reserve Components within 30 days of his disenrollment.

6.  Orders Number 15-1, issued by the U.S. Army Instructor Group, New Mexico Military Institute on 8 August 1983, honorably discharged him from USAR, for failure to satisfactorily complete advanced camp, with an effective date of 30 June 1983.
7.  He enlisted in the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) on 19 September 1983.  He entered active duty for training (ADT) on 18 June 1984.

8.  He records also contain a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 11 July 1984, which shows he was identified to an EPSBD for a physical impairment which had been identified and precluded his current enlistment under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 2.

9.  He provided a copy of a DA Form 4707 which shows an EPSBD convened on 11 July 1984 and considered his chief complaint of painful flat feet in his second week of basic combat training (BCT).  The board noted that he enlisted on 19 September 1983 and arrived at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, for BCT on 18 June 1984.  Prior to military service the applicant had avoided those strenuous activities which would indicate his foot problems.  He was diagnosed with symptomatic pes planus.  The board found he was unfit for duty in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 2-10b(5) and recommended his discharge for an existing prior to service (EPTS) condition.  The form also advised him that legal advice of an attorney employed by the Army was available to him or he could consult civilian counsel at his own expense.    

10.  On 25 July 1984, he concurred with the EPSBD proceedings and requested to be discharged from the Army without delay.  The EPSBD was approved on 30 July 1984.

11.  He was released from ADT on 1 August 1984 and was transferred to the OKARNG.  He was credited with completing 1 month and 14 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 lists in:

* Item 16 – an "X" in the "No" block 
* Item 24 (Characterization of Service) - Uncharacterized
* Item 25 (Separation Authority) - Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11
* Item 26 - JFT
* Item 28 - Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standard, No Disability

12.  He was discharged from OKARNG on 2 August 1984.  His NGB Form 22 lists in item 14 (Highest Education Level Successfully Completed) he completed 12 years of secondary/high school and 2 years of college.

13.  Army Regulation 40-501, in effect at the time, governed the medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, and appointment.  Chapter 2 specified the 
standards to ensure that individual were medically qualified.  Paragraph 2-10b(5) stated the medical condition and physical defect of symptomatic pes planus did not meet the standards.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation stated in:

   a.  Paragraph 2 – When a member was subject to separation for more than one reason (including limitations on separation actions and on characterization of service) the basis for each reason must be clearly established.

   b.  Paragraph 5-11 - 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 for initial entry training, could be separated.  Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty.  Such findings would result in an EPSBD.  An uncharacterized description of service was issued if in entry-level status.  An entry-level status was the first 180 days (6 months) of continuous active duty.

   c.  Paragraph 3-7a – an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  The regulation stated the DD Form 214 was a synopsis of the Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provided a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.  The regulation stated:

* Item 16 would indicate if the service member was or was not a high school graduate
* Item 24 would list the character of service
* Item 25 would list the separation authority
* Item 26 would list the proper separation program designator (SPD) representing the reason for separation
* Item 28 would list the reason for separation based on the regulatory or statutory authority

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes), in effect at the time, provided the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It stated the SPD code of "JFT" was applicable for Soldiers who were discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-1, with the narrative reason of "Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standard, No Disability."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  With regard to item 16 of the applicant's DD Form 214:

   a.  The evidence shows he enlisted in the USAR ROTC Program at New Mexico Military Institute on 21 August 1982.  After his disenrollment from the ROTC Program he enlisted in the OKARNG and entered on ADT.

   b.  He was released ADT from 1 August 1984 and was transferred to the OKARNG.  Item 16 of his DD Form 214 contains an "X" in the "No" block.  He was discharged from the OKARNG on 2 August 1982.  Item 14 of his NGB Form 22 shows he completed 12 years of secondary/high school and 2 years of college.

   c.  Therefore, there is sufficient evidence based on his acceptance and enlistment in the ROTC Program and NGB Form 22 to warrant correction of item 16 of his DD Form 214 show an "X" in the "Yes" block to indicate he is a high school graduate.

2.  With regard to item 24 of his DD Form 214:

   a.  In accordance with regulatory guidelines, Soldiers who had completed less than 180 days (6 months) of continuous active duty would have their service uncharacterized.  That meant that the Soldier had not been in the Army long enough for his/her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.  It was and still is not meant to be a negative reflect of a Soldier's military service.  

   b.  He was discharged after completing 1 month and 14 days of active service.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a change in the characterization of his service from uncharacterized to honorable.

3.  With regard to correction of item 28 of his DD Form 214:



   a.  On 11 July 1984, an EPSBD found him medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and determined his condition 
existed EPTS.  He was advised that legal counsel was available to him.  He concurred with these proceedings and requested to be discharged from the Army without delay.  He released from ADT on 1 August 1984 and discharged from the OKARNG on 2 August 1984.

   b.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11 provided for the discharge of 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 for initial entry training.  The regulation stated that such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty.  

   c.  The only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, at the time of his discharge, was "Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards – No Disability".  The narrative reason listed in item 28 of his DD Form 214 was properly assigned based on his separation due to his EPTS condition.  Therefore, he is not entitled to the requested relief.

4.  It is noted the ABCMR does not correct records solely for the purpose of establishing entitlements to benefits.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  __X______  _X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by placing an "X" in the "Yes" block of item 16 of his DD Form 214.


2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to a change/correction of items 26 and 28 of this form.



      _______ _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)                                         AR20140017054





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140017054



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1