RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050010131


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland C. Heflin             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to
show he was on active duty for training (ADT) with the Army National Guard
(ARNG) in June 1973 under Title 10, U. S. Code.  He requests that his
records be corrected to show his medical disabilities were incurred while
on that period of ADT.  He requests that his 1974 separation be changed to
a medical retirement.  He also requests award of the Army Good Conduct
Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.

2.  The applicant states he was exposed to chemical and biological agents
during a Cold War program named Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD –
Project 112).  His health problems are linked to that exposure but he has
been denied service-connected disability because there is no evidence to
show he participated in that program.  He also faced racial discrimination
by a former commander and company clerk while in the U. S. Army Reserve
(USAR).  He was under 21 years old and still a dependent of his father, who
was in the Army.  He was hospitalized several times in 1973 and his health
problems were misdiagnosed as EPTS (existed prior to service).

3.  The applicant states the Army was in a hurry to discharge him with a
discharge under other than honorable conditions, but his records show he
had no Article 15s or any other problems.  He made an error in deciding to
transfer to the USAR instead of staying with his ARNG unit.

4.  The applicant states he has been told he did not meet the wartime era
criteria to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability
benefits because of the lack of data and that his ARNG and USAR service
does not qualify as active duty unless he can show proof that his medical
conditions were incurred or aggravated while on a period of inactive or
active duty training.

5.  The applicant provides two very poor quality morning reports; a 20
September 2002 letter from the State of Washington Military Department; an
Annual Training 1973 roster from Headquarters and Headquarters Company,
144th Transportation Battalion (Terminal), Washington ARNG; a Standard Form
      180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records); two letters from the
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), dated 11 February 2004 and 11
February 2005; DVA medical records; an article from the August 2002 issue
of Retired Officer; and an article from the September/October 2003 issue of
DAV Magazine.

6.  The applicant provides an article from the 10 October 2002 edition of
The Olympian; a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form) dated 3 March 1974; service
medical records to include medical board proceedings; a Board of Veterans'
Appeals letter dated 9 January 2006; an electrocardiogram dated 10 January
2006; his 28 June 1974 enlistment contract; separation orders dated 28
August 1974; an NGB Form 23 (Retirement Credits Record); his DD Form 214
(Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the
period ending 8 September 1971 with a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form
214); separation orders dated 19 June 1974; an NGB Form 22 (Report of
Separation and Record of Service) for the period ending 25 July 1973 with
an NGB Form 55A (Honorable Discharge certificate); and extracts from an
unidentified document explaining DVA benefits.

7.  The applicant provides a letter dated 5 February 1974; a letter dated
            29 March 2002 from the National Association for Uniformed
Services; a DVA letter dated 14 September 1993; a DVA letter dated 19 July
1995; a letter dated 25 July 1972; Army Board for Correction of Military
Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AC77-07500A, undated; and ABCMR Docket Number
AC77-07500D, dated 12 February 1997.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 19 June 1974, the date he was discharged from the USAR.
The application submitted in this case is dated 31 May 2005.

2.  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 allows the ABCMR
to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the
ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In
this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to
determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 July 1971.  On 25
August 1971, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, paragraph 5-9, due to a congenital eye condition which was
disqualifying for enlistment but not for retention and which existed at the
time of his enlistment.  His request was approved and he was honorably
discharged on 8 September 1971 due to physical disability, EPTS, after
completing 1 month and 10 days of creditable active service.

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 September 1971
shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal.

5.  On 13 November 1972, the applicant enlisted in the ARNG.
6.  The applicant provided a copy of a Headquarters and Headquarters
Company, 144th Transportation Battalion (Terminal), WAARNG Annual Training
roster dated 2 June 1973.  The applicant's name was on the roster.

7.  The applicant provided a morning report (date illegible) that indicates
the applicant was hospitalized at the Fort Stewart, GA Army Hospital on
(date illegible) June 1973.  He also provided a morning report (date
illegible) that indicates he departed the Army Hospital at Fort Stewart, GA
on leave to Tacoma, WA on (date illegible).  A DA Form 2496 dated 3 March
1974 indicates the applicant had been air evacuated from Fort Stewart GA to
Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA in June 1973.  Apparently, a
diagnosis of "passive-dependent personality, chronic, moderate" was made at
that time and considered to be EPTS.

8.  A NGB Form 23 obtained from WAARNG, for drill period 13 November 1972
through 25 July 1973, shows the applicant performed 8 days of active duty
or ADT from 2 through 9 June 1973.

9.  On 25 July 1973, the applicant was discharged from the ARNG to enlist
in the USAR.

10.  In June 1974, a USAR medical evaluation found the applicant to be
qualified for retention in the USAR.  However, apparently because of his
diagnosis of "passive-dependent personality" with no evidence that a
medical waiver for that medical condition had been obtained, the applicant
was honorably discharged from the USAR on 19 June 1974 as not meeting
procurement medical fitness standards.

11.  The applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 28 June 1974.  His enlistment
was voided on 13 September 1974 due to his failing to meet enlistment
standards.

12.  On 9 March 1976, the applicant submitted an application to the ABCMR
requesting his reentry code be changed so he could reenlist.  In support of
that request, he submitted a letter from his civilian physician which
stated the applicant did not have any physical or mental disabilities that
would preclude his reenlistment in the service with the possible exception
of his visual acuity.

13.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a
way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.
 Chapter 8 of the regulation in effect at the time outlined the rules for
processing through the disability system Soldiers of the Reserve components
who were on active duty (AD) or ADT for a period of less than 30 days or
were on inactive duty training (IDT).  Members eligible for processing
under this chapter were those who incurred a disability from an injury
determined to be the proximate result of AD, ADT or IDT.  A member who had
a disabling condition the result of a disease rather than an injury was
ineligible for disability processing unless a medical authority had decided
the disease was the result of a service-connected injury incurred while on
AD or ADT for a period of less than 30 days or were on IDT.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides policy and criteria concerning
individual military decorations.  It states that the Army Good Conduct
Medal is awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal
military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 and, for the first
award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less
than 3 years but more than 1 year.  It may also be awarded, for the first
award only, upon termination of service on or after       27 June 1950, of
less than 1 year when final separation was by reason of physical disability
incurred in line of duty.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-2 states the National Defense Service Medal is
awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 June 1950
and 27 July 1954, both dates inclusive; between 1 January 1961 and 24
August 1974, both dates inclusive; between 2 August 1990 and 30 November
1995, both dates inclusive; and between 11 September 2001 to a date to be
determined.  A bronze service star will be worn to signify receipt of a
second or subsequent award.

16.  Project 112, which included Project SHAD, was a Cold War program to
test the ability of U. S. forces to protect and defend against potential
chemical and biological warfare.  The program was initiated in 1962 and
continued through fiscal year (FY) 1974.  However, most of the tests for
FYs 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1974 were cancelled.  One test was undertaken in
FY 1973, at Dugway Proving Ground, UT.  Two tests were undertaken in FY
1974, both at Dugway Proving Ground, UT.  The names of those known to have
participated in the tests have been provided to the DVA by the Department
of Defense.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is insufficient evidence to show the applicant's discharge from
the ARNG in 1974 should be changed to a medical retirement.  The
preponderance of evidence shows his medical conditions were EPTS.  In
addition, less than two years after his September 1974 separation from the
ARNG, in March 1976, the applicant submitted an application to the ABCMR
requesting his reentry code be changed so he could reenlist.  In support of
that request, he submitted a letter from his civilian physician which
stated the applicant did not have any physical or mental disabilities that
would preclude his reenlistment in the service with the possible exception
of his visual acuity.

2.  The evidence of record already shows the applicant was on active duty
(annual training) from 2 through 9 June 1973.  It appears he was released
from active duty when he was returned to Madigan Army Medical Center.  A
copy of the NGB Form 23 for drill period 13 November 1972 through 25 July
1973 will be provided to him.

3.  While it appears the Department of Defense did not provide the
applicant's name to the DVA as a participant in Project 112 or Project
SHAD, it also appears the applicant was not in the area (Dugway Proving
Ground, UT) where the tests were conducted in FYs 1973 and 1974.

4.  The applicant provided no evidence to show he faced racial
discrimination by a former commander and company clerk for the short time
(July 1973 to June 1974) he was in the USAR.  He contended the Army was in
a hurry to discharge him with a discharge under other than honorable
conditions, but the evidence of record shows he was separated from the USAR
with an honorable characterization of service for not meeting procurement
medical fitness standards.

5.  The Army Good Conduct Medal is normally awarded for each 3 years of
continuous enlisted active Federal military service.  For the first award
only, it may be awarded upon termination of service of less than 3 years
but more than   1 year.  The applicant served in the Regular Army for
little more than 1 month and his separation was due to an EPTS medical
condition and not as a result of a disability incurred in the line of duty.
 Since the preponderance of the evidence shows his medical conditions were
EPTS, he does not meet the eligibility criteria for award of the Army Good
Conduct Medal.

6.  The applicant has already been awarded the National Defense Service
Medal and it is reflected on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 8
September 1971.  Since he was not on active duty during the period the
award was reinstated in September 2001, he is not eligible for a second
award of the National Defense Service Medal.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 19 June 1974; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         18 June 1977.  The applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jtm___  __cak___  __rch___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  __John T. Meixell_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050010131                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060330                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |107.0056                                |
|3.                      |107.0069                                |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]