BOARD DATE: 13 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012831 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF __x______ __x______ ___x__ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 13 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012831 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending/endorsing U.S. Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps Instructor Group, The University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, TN, Orders 1-2, dated 3 April 1989, to show his correct social security number (as recorded on his DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Documents – Armed Forces of the United States). 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reserve Officers' Training Corps) based on an unfitting medical condition or an entry level status (uncharacterized) discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Ready Reserve). ___________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. BOARD DATE: 13 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012831 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, in effect, correction of his records to show he was honorably discharged based on an unfitting medical condition or, in the alternative, that he was discharged with an entry level status discharge. 2. The applicant states he injured his right ankle while playing basketball in Greenfield, TN. The injury was diagnosed by a general physician as an ankle sprain. Approximately four days later, he went to an orthopedic surgeon in Martin, TN. X-rays were taken and he was informed that he had a fracture on the inside of his ankle and strained tendons. His ankle was then placed in a cast for 8 weeks and he was released with an "air-case" brace after 4 weeks of rehabilitation. a. In the spring semester of 1988, he enrolled as an officer candidate in the Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP) of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC). In June 1988, he successfully completed Basic Combat Training. b. In January 1989, he sustained a major ankle sprain in an intramural basketball game at the University of Tennessee. A general physician treated him for the injury and he was given crutches to assist him for a 2-week period. He advised his commanders of the injury the following day. After the swelling subsided, the inside bone of his ankle was protruding inward. A podiatrist who specialized in foot injuries told him it was "most likely" caused by the initial misdiagnosis in 1986, and that the deformity and weakness in the ankle would never improve. He states, "[t]he determination was made by both the General Physician and the Podiatrist that [he] could not complete/meet the standards and requirements due to the injury." c. He provided this information to his commanders. They determined that he may not be fully prepared by the summer of 1989, both components agreed, and they offered him a medical discharge. He was discharged from the U.S. Army (USA) ROTC and his reserve unit was notified. He was then advised that he was being discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). He notes that Major (MAJ) V__ F____, Assistant Professor of Military Science (PMS), had direct contact with both the ROTC program and his USAR unit. d. He obtained copies of his records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and found an error by the ROTC component, which was sent to the Department of the Army documenting the medical discharge. Specifically, the social security number (SSN) that appears in ROTC Order Number 1-2, dated 3 April 1989, does not belong to him. Another order (Order 040-016, dated 19 April 1989) contains his correct SSN, but it discharges him for "unsatisfactory performance [participant]." e. He adds that the podiatrist is still practicing and he can confirm the misdiagnosis/prognosis of the initial ankle injury. He further adds that he is a 24-year veteran in law enforcement, a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy, and he holds a secret security clearance. 3. The applicant provides copies of: * a self-authored statement, dated 22 July 2015 (summarized above) * Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), Memphis, TN, Orders 76-13, dated 18 April 1988 * DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report), dated 19 August 1988 * USA ROTC Instructor Group, The University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, TN, Orders 1-2, dated 3 April 1989 * Headquarters, 100th Division (Training), Louisville, KY, Orders 040-016, dated 19 April 1989 * USAR Personnel Center, St. Louis, MO, Orders Number D-09-906856, dated 3 September 1991 * NPRC, St. Louis, MO, letter, dated 17 July 2015 * extract (pages 25 and 26) of Army Regulation (AR) 145-1 (Senior ROTC Program: Organization, Administration, and Training), dated 22 July 1996 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. A DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Documents – Armed Forces of the United States) shows the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 18 April 1988 for a period of 8 years. Item 2 (SSN) shows his SSN with the last four digits "." A DA Form 4824-R (Addendum to Certificate and Acknowledgement of Service) shows he enlisted for the ROTC/SMP. 3. MEPS, Memphis, TN, Orders 76-13, dated 18 April 1988, ordered the applicant to initial active duty for training (IADT) at Fort Jackson, SC, on 22 June 1988, for approximately 8 weeks. 4. A DD Form 220 shows the applicant entered IADT on 22 June 1988 and he was released from IADT on 19 August 1988. 5. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 23 August 1988, advanced the applicant to cadet/pay grade CT5, effective 28 August 1988. 6. A DA Form 597 (Army Senior ROTC Student Contract), dated 29 September 1988, shows the applicant incurred an 8-year military service obligation based on his enlistment in the USAR with assignment to the USAR Control Group (ROTC) and enrollment in the advanced course of the Senior ROTC program with an initial period of active duty of up to 4 years. The Contract (Part I) shows, in pertinent part, in paragraph 1e, "I understand that the Army may terminate this contract because of a breach of contract on my part for any reason to include misconduct or failure to meet physical, mental, moral, or other prescribed commissioning requirements." The applicant and Lieutenant Colonel E__ S. T___, III, PMS, placed their signatures on the document. 7. The applicant's records contain a C__ W__ H___, Medical Doctor, Master of Public Health, Orthopaedic Surgery, Martin, TN, letter, dated 16 January 1989, addressed "To Whom It May Concern" (with two attachments identified as Outpatient Notes with a "Case Date" of 27 December 1988 and "Dates of Visit" of 29 December 1988 and 12 January 1989). The medical doctor noted that the applicant "has a chronic back condition which he has had for several years following a high school football injury." The letter shows the doctor confirmed the applicant "has a chronic progressive problem with lower back pain. Results of recent lab tests and x-rays indicate that he has a chronic disk problem which is likely to continue to give him trouble with strenuous exercise or efforts. It is anticipated that he will not be able to participate in full duty in the U.S. military." 8. USA ROTC Instructor Group, The University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, TN, Orders 1-2, dated 3 April 1989, discharged the applicant from the USA ROTC Control Group (ROTC) under the provisions of AR 145-1, paragraph 3-43(a)(5), effective 3 April 1989. The Standard Name Line of the orders shows the applicant's correct name; however, the SSN is incorrect. 9. A DA Form 4187, dated 11 April 1989, shows the Commander, Company C, 3rd Battalion, 398th Regiment, 2nd Brigade (One Station Unit Training (OSUT) (Army Reserve (AR)), 100th Division Training, Paducah, KY, reduced the applicant from cadet to private/pay grade E-2, effective 11 April 1989. 10. Company C, 3rd Battalion, 398th Regiment, 2nd Brigade (OSUT) (AR), 100th Division Training, Paducah, KY (three letters dated 11 September 1988, 18 December 1988, and 19 January 1989), subject: Letter of Instruction (LOI) – Unexcused Absence, show the applicant was notified of his absence from scheduled multiple unit training assembly (MUTA), as follows: * periods 1 and 2 on both 10 and 11 September 1988 * periods 1 and 2 on both 3 and 4 December 1988 * periods 1 and 2 on both 7 and 8 January 1989 a. Each letter also provided him information concerning the next scheduled unit training assembly. b. U.S. Postal Service documents show he signed for the 11 September 1988 and 19 January 1989 letters on 27 September 1988 and 21 January 1989, respectively. c. An Optional Form 41 (Routing and Transmittal Slip), dated 2 February 1989, shows MAJ V__ F____, PMS, informed an official of the USAR unit that the applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC program. He added that during a telephone conversation in December 1988 he informed the applicant of the unit drill and the contents of the letter before the date of the drill. 11. Company C, 3rd Battalion, 398th Regiment, 2nd Brigade (OSUT) (AR), 100th Division Training, Paducah, KY, letter, dated 5 March 1989, subject: Unsatisfactory Participation – Unexcused Absences, shows the commander informed the applicant that he had been notified by LOI – Unexcused Absences that he had accumulated nine unexcused absences within a 1-year period. After considering his complete file and any reasons he may have submitted for being absent, the commander decided not to excuse the absences. He declared the applicant an unsatisfactory participant and informed him he would be transferred to the USAR Control Group, Individual Ready Reserve, to complete the remainder of his military service obligation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter on 14 March 1989. 12. Headquarters, 100th Division (Training), Louisville, KY, Orders 040-016, dated 19 April 1989, released the applicant from his USAR unit of assignment and transferred him to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training), effective 27 April 1989. 13. Two USAR Personnel Center, St. Louis, MO, memoranda, dated 9 May and 31 May 1991, subject: Training Opportunities for Soldiers without Military Occupational Skills (MOS), show the Director, Enlisted Personnel Management, informed the applicant (on two occasions) that a review of his military personnel record during Desert Storm Mobilization identified him as not having a primary MOS. He was instructed to complete the enclosed Advanced Individual Training (AIT) Questionnaire and return it within 30 days, and that failure to complete the document might result in his discharge from the USAR. The AIT Questionnaire shows three MOS codes 11B (Infantryman), 13B (Field Artillery Crewman), and 91A (Medical Aidman). However, there is no indication that the applicant checked any boxes, offered any information, or that he signed the form. 14. USAR Personnel Center, St. Louis, MO, Orders Number D-09-906856, dated 3 September 1991, discharged the applicant from the USAR with an Entry Level Status discharge, effective 3 September 1991. 15. In support of his application the applicant provides the following document that was not summarized above. An NPRC, St. Louis, MO, letter, dated 17 July 2015, that informed the applicant a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) was not issued to him because he had less than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty or IADT, or less than 90 consecutive days of active duty for training. REFERENCES: 1. AR 145-1, in effect at the time, prescribes policies and general procedures for administering the Army's Senior ROTC Program. Chapter 3 (Student Administration), paragraph 3-43 (Disenrollment), subparagraph a(5), shows that nonscholarship and scholarship cadets will be disenrolled for medical disqualification when determined by proper medical authority. A medical condition that precludes appointment will be cause for disenrollment. 2. AR 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures), in effect at the time, defines Army National Guard (ARNG) and USAR service obligations. Chapter 4 (Absences), in pertinent part, shows that members are unsatisfactory participants when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1-year period. 3. AR 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, establishes polices, standards, and procedures governing the administrative separation of certain enlisted Soldiers of the ARNG and the USAR. a. Chapter 5 (Entry Level Status Separation) prescribes criteria and procedures for the separation of enlisted members while in an entry level status. The service of members discharged under this chapter will be characterized as entry level separation (uncharacterized). b. The Glossary describes an entry level status separation, if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry level status. Specifically, if before the date of initiation of separation action, he/she had completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty or IADT, or no more than 90 days of Phase II under a split or alternate training option. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged based on an unfitting medical condition or, in the alternative, that he was discharged with an entry level status discharge because he had an ankle injury that existed prior to service, he completed basic combat training, and he subsequently reinjured the ankle while enrolled in SMP ROTC. 2. Records show the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 18 April 1988 for a period of 8 years with the ROTC/SMP option. He acknowledged by signing his ROTC contract that he understood the Army might terminate the contract because of a breach of contract on his part for any reason, including failure to meet the physical requirements prescribed for commissioning. 3. He attended IADT from 22 June to 19 August 1988 (a period of approximately 2 months) and he completed Basic Combat Training. 4. On 16 January 1989, a medical doctor confirmed that the applicant had a chronic back condition which he had for several years following a high school football injury. The medical doctor opined that the applicant would not be able to participate in full duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. 5. The applicant was disenrolled from ROTC based on medical disqualification, discharged from the USA ROTC Control Group (ROTC) on 3 April 1988, and transferred to a USAR unit to complete his military service obligation. It is noted that the orders promulgating the action contained his correct name; however, the SSN was incorrect and should be corrected. 6. Records show that during the period September 1988 to January 1989 the applicant acknowledged he was notified of unit training assemblies and that he accumulated more than nine unexcused absences within a 1-year period. He was also notified by his commander that he decided not to excuse the absences and he declared the applicant an unsatisfactory participant. Accordingly, orders were issued releasing him from his USAR unit as an unsatisfactory participant and he was reassigned to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete the remainder of his military service obligation. 7. The evidence of record shows, in May 1991, the applicant was instructed to complete an AIT Questionnaire to facilitate his qualification in an MOS. There is no evidence of record that shows he responded to the instructions. There is also no evidence of record that shows he completed AIT or that he was awarded an MOS. Accordingly, having completed less than 180 days of continuous active duty or IADT (and without having been awarded an MOS), the applicant was discharged from the USAR with an entry level status (uncharacterized) discharge, effective 3 September 1991. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150012831 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150012831 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2