IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  22 October 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150002100 


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, a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states he is requesting reclassification as a disabled veteran due to an injury to his right hand.  As a disabled veteran, he would qualify for veteran's benefits and disability payments.  He was injured during basic combat training (BCT) and he would like to receive an honorable medical discharge.  He enlisted to fight for his country with most of his high school friends.  They all joined the Army at the same time.  He injured his right hand during BCT and was immediately discharged without the benefit of being classified as a disabled veteran.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* Special Orders (SO) Number 214 (front page)
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* Honorable Discharge Certificate

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 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.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 22 August 1969, for a period of 3 years.  He did not complete BCT. 

3.  His records contain the following:

   a.  A Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination) shows he underwent a physical examination on 26 August 1969 based on a clinical evaluation that he had a deformity of his index, middle, and long fingers (right upper extremity) secondary to a table saw injury.  The form indicated the injury occurred approximately 5 months prior to his enlistment.

   b.  An SF 502 (Clinical Record – Narrative Summary) shows he was evaluated as an outpatient in the orthopedic clinic on 26 August 1969.  He was medically evaluated for right upper extremity problems.  The applicant injured himself 5 months prior to his enlistment while handling a table saw.  He sustained lacerations to his index, middle, and long fingers with partial amputation of the fingers.  He received medical treatment at a civilian hospital and the fingers were repaired surgically.  However, he did not have full use of his fingers and he still had pain.  He was found to be physically unfit for induction or enlistment in the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), Section VII, paragraph 2-9b(5), because of the deformity of the index, middle, and long fingers of the right hand which precluded his satisfactory performance of military duties.  The injury and resulting deformity was determined not to be in the line of duty and existed prior to service (EPTS).  He was referred to a medical board for evaluation and disposition.

   c.  A DA Form 8-118 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings), dated 10 September 1969, shows an MEB convened and considered his medical condition.  The MEB found he was medically unfit for further military service in accordance with medical fitness standards.  The MEB recommended his separation from the service for an EPTS condition under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Administrative Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-9.  The findings and the recommendations of the MEB were approved on the same day.

   d.  A DA Form 3082-R (Statement of Medical Condition), dated 19 September 1969, shows the applicant indicated there had been no change in his medical condition from his date of entrance onto active duty to his projected separation date.

   e.  SO Number 214, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Fort Jackson, SC on 16 September 1969, honorably discharged him from the RA effective 19 September 1969.  He was credited with completing 28 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 shows in:

* Item 11c (Reason and Authority) – Chapter 5, Section III, Army Regulation 635-200, Separation Program Number (SPN) "375" (See #30 (Remarks))
* Item 30 – the entry, "Item 11c:  Discharge because of not meeting medical fitness standards at time of enlistment"

4.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at that time, provided the authority and general provisions for separation of enlisted personnel prior to their expiration of their term of service.  Paragraph 5-9 of the regulation stated that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under the procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for induction or initial enlistment would be discharged when a medical board, regardless of the date completed, established that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 4 months of the Soldier's initial entrance onto active duty or active duty for training. 

5.  Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of an individual found to be unfit by reason of physical disability, the individual must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or ratings.  Members with conditions, as listed in this chapter, were considered medically unfit for retention on active duty and were referred for medical evaluation.

6.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (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.  At the time the applicant was discharged, the SPN of "375" applied to persons who were discharged for not meeting medical fitness standards at the time of entry onto active duty.

7.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, governed the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It stated the DD Form 214 would be prepared for all personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from active duty.  The regulation stated item 11c would indicate the authority for transfer or discharge followed by the SPN and descriptive reason for transfer or discharge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

The applicant contends he sustained an injury to his right hand during BCT:

   a.  The evidence of record does not support his contention he injured himself during BCT.  The record shows that approximately 5 months before his enlistment and entrance onto active duty he sustained lacerations to his index, middle, and long fingers of his right hand by a table saw which resulted in a deformity of his right upper extremity.   

   b.  On 10 September 1969, an MEB recommended his separation from military service as a result of this deformity because he could not perform military training.  The findings and recommendations of the MEB were approved on the same day.  He was discharged accordingly on 19 September 1969, by reason of not meeting medical fitness standards at the time of his entry onto active duty.

   c.  Without evidence to the contrary, it appears his separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time, all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the discharge process.  

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)                                         AR20150002100



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002100



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1