IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005934 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005934 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005934 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 his record to show he was released from active duty due to a physical disability. 2. The applicant states his discharge shows he was released from active duty for a condition not a disability while his Army National Guard (ARNG) record shows the reason for discharge as "Medically Disqualified." He served on active duty for over 30 days and received medical treatment from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center for keratoconus. The VA granted him service connection for this condition stating service connection was granted for keratoconus on the right eye because this condition, which existed prior to service, was permanently aggravated as a result of his service. 3. The applicant provides copies of – * 16 January 2008 active duty special work orders * 4 February 2008 mobilization orders * 15 February 2008 DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) * 19 February 2008 active duty orders * 15 April 2008 release from active duty form * 24 April 2008 temporary profile * 30 April 2008 separation orders * 8 May 2008 amendment to his active duty orders * 8 May 2008 Army National Guard (ARNG) discharge orders * service medical records 31 March 2008 through 11 April 2008 * 8 May 2008 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * 30 March 2010 VA rating determination * 2 April 2010 VA rating letter * 10 March 2014 email * one page of an 11 April 2014 VA medical note * 9 June 2014 resignation letter * 9 June 2014 Medical Inquiry form * 15 March 2015 VA letter * a Keratoconus information printout 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, with prior active duty service from 14 March 1985 through 18 June 1990, enlisted in the Army National Guard on 21 September 2007. His military occupational specialty is shown as 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) with assignment to a military police unit. 3. On a 15 February 2008 DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), the applicant stated that on the day he was to zero in his sights he advised the sergeant that he was having problems with his right eye being blurry. He tried firing left handed without success. Lieutenant H____ looked at his eye and said it looked blood shot. After several attempts and with one on one assistance he was able to zero in his iron sights and his scope, but failed to qualify in the firing course. Following the firing range exercise he informed his chain of command that his head hurt from trying to fire left handed and the vision in his right eye was blurry. He was advised to have his eyes checked as soon as possible. 4. On 19 February 2008, the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraq Freedom effective 21 March 2008. 5. A 31 March 2008 medical evaluation states the applicant was evaluated and given the diagnosis of keratoconus. The report states: Soldier evaluated at National Naval Medical Center Ophthalmology clinic today, (please refer to AHLTA note from today). Best corrected visual acuity is 20/50 OD [right eye] and 20/20 OS [left eye] in our clinic. This is with current prescription, and no improvement with further refraction. Soldier has documented diagnosis of keratoconus in right eye with decreased vision even with spectacle correction, but meets retention criteria as set forth by AR 40-501 3-15 and 3-16. No profile needed with this condition and current vision, but recommend discussion with commander for possibility of deployment or reclassification. With this condition, better vision can be acquired with rigid gas permeable contact lenses, however for deployment standards only correction with glasses are accepted as contact lenses use is prohibited in the field. 6. On 24 April 2008 the applicant was given a temporary E-2 profile for his right eye. 7. On 15 April 2008, the applicant was processed for relief from active duty. The reason states was that he need contact lenses for his eye condition but was nondeployable with lenses. 8. On 10 April 2008, the applicant was released from active duty, not by reason of a physical disability, effective 8 May 2008. 9. The applicant's 8 May 2008 DD Form 214 shows he had 2 months and 18 days of creditable active duty service and was released from active duty in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17 for a [medical] condition not a disability. 10. The Kentucky ARNG discharged the applicant from the ARNG and the Reserve of the Army effective 8 May 2008 as being "medically disqualified." 11. On 30 March 2010 VA granted the applicant service connection for keratoconus of the right eye at a noncompensable level. In the rating determination it was stated that the applicant was treated for eye complaints on 7 February 2008 prior to entering active duty. The applicant was granted service connection for a condition that existed prior to military (EPTS) service but was shown to have worsened as a result of service. Prior to service the condition was considered to be 30 percent disabling and following service it was determined to be at the same disability level; therefore, a noncompensable evaluation was warranted. The applicant disagreed with this disability level. 12. On 9 June 2014, under the advice of a VA doctor the applicant submitted a resignation letter from his civilian job. 13. On 15 March 2015 VA denied the applicant's appeal for a higher disability rating. 14. The Keratoconus information printout, provided by the applicant, states that it is believed that keratoconus is a developmental (genic) condition and the condition is described as a vision disorder that occurs when the normally round cornea (the front part of the eye) becomes thin and irregular (cone) shaped. This abnormal shape prevents the light entering the eye from being focused correctly on the retina and causes distortion of vision. This abnormal shape prevents the light entering the eye from being focused correctly on the retina and causes distortion of vision. In its earliest stages, keratoconus causes slight blurring and distortion of vision and increased sensitivity to glare and light. These symptoms usually appear in the late teens or late 20's. Keratoconus may progress for 10-20 years and then slow in its progression. Each eye may be affected differently. As keratoconus progresses, the cornea bulges more and vision may become more distorted. In a small number of cases, the cornea will swell and cause a sudden and significant decrease in vision. The swelling occurs when the strain of the cornea's protruding cone-like shape causes a tiny crack to develop. The swelling may last for weeks or months as the crack heals and is gradually replaced by scar tissue. If sudden swelling occurs, eye drops can be prescribe for temporary relief, but there are no medicines that can prevent the disorder from progressing. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) states that keratoconus of any degree is a cause for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction. 2. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary, congenital, developmental, and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a Soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnosed or should have been diagnosed. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. a. Paragraph 5-11 provides for the early separation (within the first six months) of those individuals who were not qualified under procurement medical standards, who manifested symptoms of medical problems that would have made them not qualified under procurement medical standards or who became not qualified prior to entry. b. Paragraph 5–17 ( Other designated physical or mental conditions) states that commanders may approve separation under this paragraph on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability (AR 635–40) and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5–11 or 5–13 that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant was diagnosed with keratoconus prior to entry onto active duty. This condition is considered a congenital or developmental abnormality and not a physical disability for which medical separation or discharge is warranted. 2. Notwithstanding the VA determination granting the applicant service connection based on aggravation, there is no evidence that the applicant's period of active duty worsened his eye condition beyond the normal progression of the condition. 3. The applicant did not meet the medical procurement or retention standards due to a developmental abnormality that is shown to have existed prior to active duty. This type of medical condition does not meet the standards for processing as a physical disability, hence the wording of "condition, not a disability." 4. The ARNG's use of the term of "medically disqualified" does not mean the applicant had a medical condition that qualified him for disability separation or retirement but the condition did preclude continuation in the ARNG. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005934 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005934 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2