BOARD DATE: 10 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014382 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 BOARD DATE: 10 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014382 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. BOARD DATE: 10 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014382 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 his uncharacterized discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, section 24 (Character of Service) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows his service as "Uncharacterized." Under section 2-9 of Army Regulation (AR) 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve - Enlisted Administrative Separations), dated 18 March 2014, "an honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate." Since there are no disciplinary issues in his service record, and each of his orders were carried out to the best and most virtuous of conduct, his discharge should be changed to honorable. He received no specific reprimands. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214. 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 Regular Army (RA) for a 6-year term on 11 May 2004. He completed basic combat training and was assigned to Fort Gordon, GA, for training in a signal specialty. 3. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case. However, his records contain the front page of a DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Boards (EPSBD) Proceedings), dated 23 September 2004. It shows: a. His chief complaint was hypersensitivity to loud noise and chronic bilateral ear pain. His past medical history included otitis with sequelae of perforated left tympanic membrane in 1990 and spontaneous perforation of right tympanic membrane in 2004. His past history included tympanoplasty with fascia graft repair left ear on 18 January 1990. b. He reported a long history of sensitivity to loud noises causing pain since childhood. He suffered spontaneous perforation of right tympanic membrane during rifle fire training on 21 June 2004. He was evaluated on 30 July 2004 and was found to have a persistent perforation of the right tympanic membrane and was referred to otolaryngology at Evans Army Medical Center. He was evaluated by otolaryngology on 13 September 2004 and was found to have resolution of his perforated tympanic membrane, but he still experienced chronic pain with loud noise. c. His final diagnosis was chronic bilateral ear pain and a recent history of perforated tympanic membrane within 120 days of his enlistment physical. The applicant did not meet enlistment standards in paragraph 2-6 of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). It was in the best interest of this Soldier and the United States Government to effect separation from active duty per paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). d. The medical approving authority approved the findings and recommendations of the EPSBD on 14 October 2004. 4. The back page of the DA Form 4707 is not available for review. However, it appears: a. The medical approving authority forwarded the EPSBD Proceedings to the applicant's unit for appropriate action in accordance with paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200. b. The applicant appears to have acknowledged that he was informed of the medical findings. He would have acknowledged he understood that an attorney employed by the Army was available to him and that he could consult with civilian counsel at his own expense. He would have further acknowledged he understood he could request a discharged from the Army without delay or request retention on active duty. After counseling, the applicant would have concurred with the proceedings and requested a discharge from the Army without delay. c. The discharge authority would have approved the applicant's separation from the Army under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards. 5. On 24 November 2004, Headquarters, U.S. Army Signal Center, Fort Gordon, GA, published Orders 329-0900 discharging him from active duty effective 1 December 2004 by authority of AR 635-200. 6. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 1 December 2004 under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meet medical procurement fitness standards. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 6 months and 21 days of creditable active service. It also shows in: * item 24 – Uncharacterized * item 26 (Separation Code) – JFW 7. On 8 June 2015, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his discharge processing and found it proper and equitable. The ADRB denied his request for a change of his character of service. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-11 states that Soldiers who are not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty, active duty for training, or initial entry training will be separated. A medical proceeding conducted by an EPSBD, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at the time of enlistment, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. b. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized (entry-level status) if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active service prior to initiation of the separation action. 2. AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty. The SPD code of JFW is the correct code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11. DISCUSSION: 1. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not available for review with this case. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 1 December 2004 for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards. 2. The available evidence shows while in training, medical authorities identified a preexisting condition that failed medical procurement fitness standards. Since he failed medical procurement fitness standards, separation action would have been initiated against him. He would have been advised of his rights and presented with options, including requesting an immediate discharge. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that all requirements of law and regulations were met. The applicant did not provide any evidence to show his discharge was improper or inequitable. 3. His condition was identified within his first 180 days of service and separation action was initiated within 180 days of entry. His service was appropriately identified as “uncharacterized.” All requirements of law and regulation were presumably met and the rights of the applicant were presumably protected throughout the separation process. 4. Uncharacterized service is neither positive nor negative; it is not derogatory. It simply means the Soldier did not serve on active duty long enough to qualify for a specified service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014382 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014382 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2