BOARD DATE: 15 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008904 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 item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 2. The applicant states that she did not have any medical issues/conditions prior to her entry into military service. She states that she suffered a traumatic brain injury while on active duty. The entry "Disability, Existed Prior To Service [EPTS], PEB [Physical Evaluation Board]" was typed in item 28 after she signed the DD Form 214. If the statement had been entered in item 28 at the time she signed the form, she would have refused to sign the DD Form 214. 3. The applicant provides copies of a VA Form 21-4138 (Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) – Statement in Support of Claim), eight letters, two prescriptions, and two medical statements. 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 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 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 12 May 2001. She was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) on 30 May 2001 for a period of approximately 20 weeks or completion of training. 3. On 31 January 2002, the commander noted that the applicant was physically incapable of reasonably performing her duties in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91W (Health Care Specialist) due to chronic severe migraine headaches. He referred her for a medical/physical evaluation board. 4. A DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings) shows an MEB convened on 20 March 2002 at Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), Fort Sam Houston, TX, and the proceedings included an MEB Summary and two MEB Addenda. a. The MEB Narrative Summary, dated 10 March 2002, Diagnoses section, in pertinent part, shows "Migraine headaches, chronic, daily, all of which are prostrating, probably aggravated by hormone treatment (Depo-Provera). b. The Addendum to MEB, dated 29 January 2002, completed by the Chief, Neurology Services, BAMC, in pertinent part, shows "Family Medical History: Both [applicant's] mother and son have severe migraine headaches." c. After consideration of the above, including clinical records and laboratory findings, the Board found that the applicant had the following medical conditions/ defects and approximate dates of origin – * migraine headache – EPTS * bilateral pes planus, mild – 2001 * neurotmesis of the left inferior alveolar nerve – 2002 * community acquired pneumonia, resolved – 2001 * transient airway hyperactivity, secondary, resolved – 2001 d. The MEB recommended the case be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for disposition. e. The findings and recommendations were approved on 20 March 2002. f. The applicant indicated her agreement with the MEB proceedings. 5. A DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) shows an informal PEB convened on 1 April 2002 at Fort Sam Houston, TX. a. It shows the following condition was determined to be unfitting: Veteran Administration Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Code 8100, migraine headaches, chronic, daily. The Board determined the applicant's condition was not incurred or aggravated while entitled to basic pay, or was it the proximate result of performing duty. Recommended Disability: ---%. b. The remaining MEB diagnoses were found not unfitting, not rated. c. The PEB found the applicant physically unfit, recommended a combined rating of ---%, and separation from the service without disability benefits. d. The PEB President signed the PEB proceedings. e. On 22 August 2000, the Alternate PEB Liaison Officer (PEBLO) confirmed the applicant was fully briefed on the findings and recommendations of the PEB, and also on her legal rights pertaining thereto. f. The applicant concurred with the PEB proceedings, waived a formal hearing of her case, and placed her signature on the document. g. The PEB proceedings were approved on 8 April 2002. 6. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant entered active duty on 30 May 2001 and was honorably discharged on 28 May 2002 under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 4-24b(4). She had completed 11 months and 29 days of net active service this period. It also shows in – * item 26 (Separation Code): "JFM" * item 28: "Disability, Existed Prior to Service, PEB" * item 21a (Signature of Member Being Separated): the applicant signed the document 7. In support of her application the applicant provides the following documents. a. VA Form 21-4138, dated 12 June 2014, which shows she requested that the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) service organization provide her a complete audit pertaining to her service-connected, migraine headache condition and that the DAV service officer found her eligible for consideration by the DAV. b. Eight (template) letters (under the signatures of her father, brother, two sons, cousin, and three other individuals) that show each individual states, "I have known [applicant] for all of her life and I know that she did not suffer from any chronic illnesses, including migraine headaches, before joining the U.S. Military. Beside childhood colds, she had always been healthy." c. Two Security Prescription Forms, dated 11 September 2014 and 19 November 2014, that show the applicant had severe migraine headache/ intermittent migraine syndrome, respectively, which disabled her from work. d. Two VA Medical Center, Saginaw, MI, letters; one from the Department of Neurology and Gerontology, dated 2 January 2015, and one from the Primary Care Green Team, dated 16 April 2015. The letters show both medical officials stated that the applicant is unable to retain new information due to memory impairment secondary to seizure disorder, which is also compounded by chronic head pain. They noted the applicant presents safety risks due to falls and her inability to operate heavy machinery due to the risk of seizure activity. They both added that the applicant is unable to be employed for the stated reasons. 8. AR 635-40 sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform. Separation by reason of disability requires processing through the physical disability evaluation system. Chapter 3 (Policies) provides in: a. paragraph 3-1 (Standards of unfitness because of physical disability), 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 requirement of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating; and b. paragraph 3-3 (Conditions existing before active military service), according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered the military service. This includes conditions which medical authorities are in such consistent and universal agreement as to their cause and time of origin that no additional confirmation is needed to support the conclusion that they existed prior to military service. c. Paragraph 3-5 (Use of the VASRD), only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. 9. AR 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. It also established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. Table 2-1 (DD Form 214 Preparation Instructions) contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214. It shows for item 28, enter the narrative reason for separation as shown in AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) based on the regulatory or other authority. 10. AR 635-5-1 provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It lists "Disability, Existed Prior To Service, PEB" as the narrative reason for separation and the SPD code "JFM" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers involuntarily discharged under the provisions of AR 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(4). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, that item 28 of her DD Form 214 should be corrected because she did not have any medical issues/conditions prior to her entry into military service, she was discharged based on a disability that EPTS, and "EPTS" was entered on the DD Form 214 as the basis for her separation after she signed the form. 2. On 20 March 2002, an MEB convened and considered the applicant's clinical records, laboratory findings, physical examination with her report of medical history, MEB narrative summary, and two addenda to the MEB. In pertinent part, the Chief, Neurology Services, BAMC, noted a family medical history (applicant's mother and son) of severe migraine headaches. The MEB considered all of her medical conditions, recommended her case be referred to a PEB, including the condition of migraine headache (EPTS). The applicant concurred with the MEB findings and recommendations, and she placed her signature on the document. 3. On 1 April 2002, an informal PEB convened. The applicant's condition of migraine headaches, chronic, daily, was determined to be unfitting and that the condition EPTS. The remaining MEB diagnoses were found not unfitting. The PEB recommended a combined rating of ---% and that the applicant be separated from the service without disability benefits. The applicant concurred with the PEB proceedings, waived a formal hearing of her case, and she placed her signature on the document. 4. The evidence of record shows the applicant's case was thoroughly reviewed and carefully considered throughout the disability evaluation system process. 5. The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of AR 635-40, paragraph 4-24(b)(4), due to a disability that EPTS based on approved PEB proceedings was in compliance with all requirements of law and applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights. 6. The sincerity of the applicant's comments with respect to her signature on the DD Form 214 is not in dispute. However, based on the evidence of record, the entry in item 28 of her DD Form 214 correctly shows the narrative reason for her separation. 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) AR20150008904 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008904 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1