IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007815 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 her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge for medical reasons and issuance of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty). 2. The applicant states she received an uncharacterized discharge from the Army and she did not receive a DD Form 214 when she was discharged. She was allergic to something at Fort Jackson, SC, and it sent her body into allergic shock. She did not realize she had not received a DD Form 214 until she applied for housing benefits. She concludes by stating she suffered an injustice during her brief period of service because her service was uncharacterized and she was separated without being issued a DD Form 214. 3. The applicant provides copies of her – * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 31 October 1986 * Standard Form (SF) 86 (Report of Medical Examination, dated 31 October 1986 * immunization record * SF 608 (Dental Record) * DA Form 2 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part I) * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) * U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) discharge orders, dated 17 February 1987 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 enlisted in the USAR on 31 October 1986. 3. A SF 93 (Report of Medical History) completed on the day she entered the service shows she indicated she was allergic to the plant oleander. 4. A SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 31 October 1986, shows she was medically qualified for enlistment in the USAR. 5. Her DA Form 2-1 shows that effective 10 January 1987, she was assigned to Company A, 8th Battalion, 2nd Basic Training Brigade, Fort Jackson, SC, for initial active duty training. 6. She was seen at the Fort Jackson Health Clinic on 13 January, 16 January, 20 January, and 28 January 1987 for physical health issues related to an allergic reaction. 7. On 4 February 1987 her record went before an entrance physical standards board (EPSBD). Her medical evaluation shows she had a history of eczema as a child. She had occasional hay fever and was told this was due to an allergic reaction to the oleander bush. Her recent flare up began during her first week of Army training and her physical condition had worsened despite treatment. a. She had the following medical conditions: (1) pruritis (an unpleasant condition of the skin causing a desire or reflex to scratch) with intense burning and it impaired her ability to wear a uniform; and (2) erythemia (redness or rash), edema (swelling caused by excess fluid), and excoriations (abrasions or scratches on the skin). b. Her diagnosis was atopic dermatitis (chronic skin condition that causes intense itching and a red raised rash). Based on this diagnosis she received a permanent profile and could not continue training requiring exposure to high environmental temperatures. c. The EPSBD recommended the applicant be separated from the USAR for failing to meet medical procurement standards in accordance with chapter 2, paragraph 2-35b, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). The condition existed prior to service and was aggravated during her initial entry training. 8. On 5 February 1987 the applicant checked the appropriate block on the DA Form 4707 (EPSBD Proceedings) indicating she concurred with the board findings and recommendation. She requested to be discharged from the Army without delay. 9. On 5 February 1987 she was counseled by her commander concerning her options. She elected immediate discharge from the USAR due to failing to meet medical fitness standards for a condition that existed prior to her enlistment. 10. Her unit commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for separation and the approving authority subsequently approved the applicant's request. 11. Order Number 31-775, dated 17 February 1987, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, discharged her from the USAR effective 18 February 1987 with an uncharacterized discharge. She had completed 1 month and 9 days of active duty service. 12. Army Regulation 40-501, in effect at the time, provided the medical fitness standards in sufficient detail to ensure uniformity in the medical evaluation of candidates for military service. Chapter 2 set forth the medical conditions and physical defects which were medically disqualifying and prohibited entrance into the Army during peacetime. Paragraph 2-35 outlined the causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction into the Army due to skin and cellular tissue medical conditions. Paragraph 2-35b addressed atopic dermatitis. It stated that for those candidates or trainees with a documented history of atopic dermatitis, prior to their entrance into the service, should be disqualified from serving. 13. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3 states a separation will be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time separation action is initiated. 14. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. It stated a DD Form 214 will be prepared for Reserve component Soldiers completing 90 days or more of continuous active duty training. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record shows an EPSBD found the applicant medically disqualified for enlistment in accordance with established medical fitness standards at the time. The board determined her atopic dermatitis existed prior to her entry into military service and was cause for her immediate release from active duty because she could not perform her military duties due to the environment aggravating her medical condition. 2. The applicant concurred with the recommendation of the EPSBD and requested immediate discharge. On 18 February 1987 she was discharged with an uncharacterized character of service. She was separated while she was in an entry-level status (before completing 90 days of active duty service) so she was not issued a DD Form 214 based on regulatory guidance. As she was released prior to completing her initial entry training and well before she could have completed 180 days of service, her characterization of service was correctly identified as uncharacterized. 3. An uncharacterized character of service is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means the Soldier did not serve on active duty long enough for her character of service to be rated. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the requested relief and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support her contention that the Army’s actions at the time of her service were unjust. 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) AR20120010747 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007815 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1