IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 February 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130011429 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 reconsideration of his previous request for a change of his characterization of service to honorable and the narrative reason for his separation to medical. He also now requests a personal appearance before the Board. 2. The applicant states: a. He really thinks he should be entitled to his benefits based on his service in the U.S. Army fighting for his country. He should receive the same benefits as any other Soldier receives. His eye has gotten worse and he does not have any insurance or benefits that would take care of the cost of the doctor bills for his eye. He does not think he received a full and thorough investigation of his case and was denied because it was stated he had glaucoma before entering basic training. b. During his first examination, the nurse stated that his vision was good and he was processed for basic training, but while attending basic training he was discharged because he had glaucoma. He should be entitled to his benefits and requests reconsideration and a personal appearance before the Board. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120009208 on 29 November 2012. 2. The applicant's states he should be entitled to his benefits and he now requests a personal appearance before the Board. This is new evidence and will be considered by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 January 2012 for 3 years. 4. A DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), dated 18 January 2012, shows he underwent an initial entry training examination. He was diagnosed with amblyopia strabismus, pre-glaucoma (high risk), and exotropia. The EPSBD recommended he be separated for failure to meet medical procurement standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), paragraph 2-12i(5). The form noted that the applicant had reported having eye muscle surgery between 7 and 8 years of age and there was no family history of eye disease or glaucoma. The EPSBD was approved on 23 January 2012. 5. On 25 January 2012, he acknowledged he understood he had the right to consult with counsel, request to be discharged, or to request retention on active duty and if retained, involuntarily reclassified into another military occupational specialty (MOS) based on his medical condition. He concurred with the findings and recommendations of the EPSBD and requested to be discharged without delay. 6. On 25 January 2012, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge. 7. Accordingly, he was discharged on 1 February 2012 after completing 22 days of net active service. His DD Form 214 shows in: * Item 24 (Characterization of Service) – Uncharacterized * Item 25 (Separation Authority) - Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-11 * Item 28 – Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards 8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation states in: a. 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, may be separated. Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty. Such findings will result in an EPSBD. An uncharacterized description of service is issued if in entry-level status. An entry-level status is the first 180 days of continuous active duty. b. Paragraph 3-7a – an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 9. Army Regulation 40-501 governs the medical fitness standards for retention and separation. The regulation states in paragraph 2-12i(5) that a current or history of glaucoma, but not limited to primary, secondary, or pre-glaucoma as evidenced by intraocular pressure above 21 millimeters of mercury, or changes in the optic disc or visual field loss associated with glaucoma, do not meet the procurement standard. 10. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, established the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). It set forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier was unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. If a Soldier was found unfit because of physical disability, the regulation provided for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations. Soldiers were referred into the PDES system when they no longer met medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. 11. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. An EPSBD diagnosed the applicant with glaucoma and recommended he be separated for failure to meet medical procurement standards. He acknowledged his right to be retained on active duty and reclassified into another MOS based on his medical condition. He concurred with the findings and recommendations of the EPSBD and requested to be discharged. 2. He could have elected to be retained on active duty and reclassified based on his medical condition and he did not do so, which was his right. There is no evidence of record and he provided none to show he did not meet medical retention standards and was entitled to a medical discharge. He was properly separated with due process for failing to meet medical procurement standards. Therefore, he is not entitled to a medical discharge. 3. The disposition of Soldiers who are found not to meet the Army's procurement medical fitness standards is through administrative separation and not through the Army's PDES. As such, he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time. No evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command was found. It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 4. He provided insufficient evidence and there is no evidence of record to support his contention that he should have received a medical discharge. 5. In accordance with regulatory guidelines, Soldiers who have completed less than 180 days (6 months) of continuous active duty will have their service uncharacterized. This means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his/her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. It is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. He was discharged on 1 February 2012 after completing 22 days of net active service. Therefore, he is not entitled to a change in the characterization of his service from uncharacterized to honorable. 6. Relief is not granted solely for the purpose of an applicant qualifying for medical or other benefits. 7. With respect to the personal hearing, his request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120009208, dated 29 November 2012. _______ _ 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) AR20130011429 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130011429 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1