IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011282 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: 11 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011282 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: 11 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011282 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 his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), with an effective date of 27 June 1969, be corrected to show he received a medical discharge and that he was promoted to pay grade E-2. 2. The applicant states he was injured during a field tactical exercise during his advanced individual training. He went before a board of three medical doctors and was approved for a medical discharge. He was promoted to pay grade E-2 out of basic through a commander's evaluation. As a holdover for a (medical) discharge he was harassed, called a coward, given every dirty detail, and loaned out to other companies for more details. When he spoke to a personnel officer he was told that it takes a long time to process a disability discharge. The personnel officer stated the harassment would continue unless he signed a waiver of disability. If he signed the waiver, the discharge would go through much quicker. 3. Around 1975 his injury worsened and the Veterans Administration (VA) stated because of his DD Form 214 his injury was not considered service connected. The VA told him his records were burned in a fire in the Records Division in Missouri. 4. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 with an effective date of 27 June 1969. 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. On 5 March 1969 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. He completed basic combat training. However, he did not complete advanced individual training. 3. On 26 May 1969 the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-9 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). a. He was notified that based on preliminary findings, he was not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when he was accepted for induction on 5 March 1969. He was advised that he could submit an application for separation or decline to do so. b. He was advised that he was not disqualified for retention in the military service under the provisions of chapter 3, AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). He did not desire to complete the period of service for which he was inducted. c. He certified it was fully explained to him that as a result of his application and provided that the approved findings of a medical board corroborated the preliminary findings concerning his unfitness, his release from the Army would be without entitlement to disability benefits from the service. However, it did not preclude his applying for the benefits administered by the VA. 4. On 29 May 1969 a medical board found the applicant had severe snapping of his left scapula. The condition was found to be not in line of duty, existed prior to service. The board recommended the applicant be separated from the military service under the provisions of paragraph 5-9a of AR 635-200 for a condition which existed prior to service and had not been aggravated by active service. 5. On 6 June 1969 the findings and recommendations of the board were approved. The applicant did not appeal. 6. On 24 June 1969, by letter Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Lewis transmitted to the applicant's unit the approved request for release from the custody and control of the service by virtue of an erroneous induction. 7. Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, WA, Special Orders Number 178, dated 27 June 1969, released the applicant from active duty and the custody and control of the Army by virtue of a void induction. The authority shown on the orders is paragraph 5-9.1 of AR 635-200. He completed 3 months and 23 days of active service that was characterized as honorable. His DD Form 214 shows his pay grade as E-1 and contains the following entries: * Item 11a (Type of transfer or discharge) – Released from military control by reason of a void induction * Item 11c (Reason and Authority) – AR 635-200, Separation Program Number (SPN) 376, voidance of induction * Item 13a (Character of service) – honorable 8. Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows his grade as private/pay grade E-1. There are no promotions indicated on the DA Form 20. 9. The applicant's service medical records are not available for review. 10. A fire at the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO, occurred on 12 July 1973. Eighty percent of Army records of personnel who were discharged from 1 November 1912 to 1 January 1960 were destroyed. REFERENCES: 1. AR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, governed the administrative advancement to pay grade E-2. a. Advancement to pay grade E-2, unless prevented by the commander concerned, was accomplished by the custodian of the individual's personnel records at the time the individual completed 6 months of active federal service. b. In recognition of outstanding performance, local commanders were authorized to advance to private E-2 individuals who had at least 4 months but less than 6 months time in service. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-9.1 stated individuals inducted in the Army who, at the time, did not meet the medical fitness standards for induction were released from custody and control of the Army by virtue of a void induction unless: * their induction was procured by fraud on their part * they met the medical fitness standard for retention and signed a statement acknowledging eligibility for release from military control but desired retention b. Individuals whose inductions were void were released from the custody and control of the Army by special orders. The discharge authority issued a DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 was to show the following entries: * Item 11a – Released from military control by reason of a void induction * Item 11c – AR 635-200, SPN 376, voidance of induction * Item 13a – honorable or under honorable conditions DISCUSSION: 1. There is no substantive evidence the applicant was injured while on active duty. His service medical records are not available for review. A medical board found the applicant's severe snapping of his left scapula existed prior to service and had not been aggravated by active service. The applicant was advised he was not disqualified for retention. However, he indicated he did not desire to complete the period for which he was inducted. He was advised his release from the Army would be without entitlement to disability benefits from the service. 2. At the time of his release from military control, the applicant had completed 3 months and 23 days of active service. The regulation in effect at time provided for advancement to E-2 upon completion of 6 months of active service. Accelerated advancement required at least 4 months of active service. As he served less than 4 months, he did not meet the criteria for advancement to E-2. 3. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011282 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011282 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2