MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 July 1999 DOCKET NUMBER: AR1999023423 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Mr. Loren G. Harrell Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Chairperson Member Member The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his honorable discharge be changed to show that he was discharged by reason of physical disability in order to receive VA benefits. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he should have been discharged due to physical disability instead of being honorably discharged. He also states that he was discharged due to an illness that existed prior to service (EPTS). He further states that a DD Form 256-A (Honorable Discharge Certificate) was an injustice to him. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was administered an entrance examination on 27 September 1965 and his Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) indicated that he was qualified for enlistment with a 111121 physical profile. He entered active duty on 27 September 1965. The applicant was admitted to the US Army Hospital at Fort Jackson, South Carolina on 10 October 1965. The applicant’s physician prepared a narrative summary in which he indicated that the applicant had a known history of sickle cell disease of many years’ duration and was admitted for pain in his legs arms and back. The physician also noted a cough preceding the onset of pain; however, the applicant denied nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or abdominal pain. He also stated that the applicant’s last episode of sickle cell crisis had occurred approximately a year ago and was very similar to his present attack. The applicant also gave a history of having a bad blood transfusion in childhood. The physician also indicated that the applicant’s condition was satisfactory and diagnosed the applicant as having (1) 2926 - anemia (a condition in which the blood is deficient either in quantity or in quality), sickle cell, (2) 3800 – astigmatism (defective curvature of the refractive surfaces of the eye as a result of which a ray of light is not sharply focused on the retina but is spread over a more or less diffuse area), compound hyperopic and (3) 3885 – amblyopia (dimness of vision without detectable organic lesion of the eye), right eye. He further indicated that the applicant was not qualified for retention in the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-7 due to sickle cell anemia, which existing prior to his entry on active duty and which would preclude his satisfactory performance of duty. He also recommended that that the applicant’s case be presented to a Medal Evaluation Board (MEB) for final evaluation and disposition The applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) medical examination on 16 October 1965 and was found not fit for duty with a physical profile of 411121 in accordance with AR 40-501, chapter 3. The examination indicated that the applicant had a (2926) anemia, sickle cell, (3800) astigmatism hyperapic and (3885) amblyopia, right eye. On 20 October 1965, the applicant submitted a Personnel Action Form (DA Form 1049) request for separation for physical disability in accordance with Army Regulation R 635-40A to the Commanding General of Fort Jackson, South Carolina. He also understood that as a result of his application and provided that the approved findings of a medical board corroborate the preliminary findings concerning his unfitness, he may be discharged. He also elected to appear before his MEB. On 21 October 1965 the applicant’s case was considered by MEB with him present at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. The MEB diagnosis the applicant with anemia, sickle cell, astigmatism, compound hyperopic and amblyopia, right eye, EPTS. The MEB also diagnosed the applicant as having a chronic blood disease and defective vision and recommend that the applicant be separated from service for a condition that existed prior to service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40A. The MEB results were approved on the same day. The applicant was honorably discharged on 26 October 1965 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40A. He was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 256-A). He had a total of 1 month of creditable service. Army Regulation 635-40A, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for Personnel Separations (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Separation or Retirement for Physical Disability). Section VI, provides for miscellaneous provisions. Paragraph 33 states that members of the Army who are ordered into the active military service for a period in excess of 30 days and who are determined to be unfit by a medical board for retention on active duty by reason of physical or mental disqualification’s which were not incurred or aggravated while entitled to receive basic pay may request discharge or relief from active duty, as appropriate under this section, or elect appearance before a PEB. Army Regulation 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation, paragraph 3-1, provides that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating. Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-2b(1), provides that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 3. The Board notes that the applicant was on active duty from 27 September 1965 to 26 October 1965, a total of 1 month. Shortly after entrance on active duty, competent medical authorities determined that the applicant was medically unfit for entrance on active duty due to a medical condition, which was neither incurred in nor aggravated by active military service. The applicant concurred and requested discharge without delay. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged without disability benefits from the Army. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING xxxx xxxx_____ xxxxxx____ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director INDEX CASE ID AR1999023423 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 19990722 TYPE OF DISCHARGE HD DATE OF DISCHARGE 19651026 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR .635-40a DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 191 2. 177 3. 4. 5. 6. ABCMR Memorandum of AR1999023423 Consideration (cont) 2