IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015789 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: 28 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015789 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: 28 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015789 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, that he processed through the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) due to an unspecified medical condition that was not treated. 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. He believes his medical records were lost by his last unit; consequently, he never received an out-processing physical examination. b. His orders contained the additional instructions, "Soldier is being reassigned for further medical evaluation and processing," which did not occur. Because of this, an illness aggravated while on active duty occurred and without this follow-on medical processing, his illness was allowed to worsen without proper treatment to the degree of total catastrophic life collapse. Had this processing occurred, he would have received the proper treatment and his symptoms would have been less severe. It caused him life hardship lasting several years and years of treatment at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). c. Additionally, he was so mentally unstable that he was unable to properly find help to complete documents and seek help. It was only 5 years ago that a drug was found to treat his condition by the VA and he is slowly regaining his mental stability. 3. The applicant provides Orders 325-208, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command & Fort Lee, Fort Lee, VA, on 21 November 1990. He also states he submitted a document from "VHA STA540 Louis A. Johnson, VAMC, 1 Med Center Drive, Clarksburg, WV"; however, this document was not included with his application. 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 on 12 March 1976. After his initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist). He was honorably discharged on 22 July 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program. 3. After a break in service, he enlisted in the West Virginia Army National Guard (WVARNG) on 27 July 1978. He extended his enlistment multiple times. 4. The applicant was honorably discharged from the ARNG on 20 March 1984 and was reassigned to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement). His NGB Form 22 (National Guard Bureau – Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he completed 5 years, 7 months, and 24 days of net service this period. 5. Orders C-03-013160, issued by the USAR Personnel Center, St. Louis, MO on 16 March 1985, reassigned him from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to the 646th Quartermaster Company effective 1 March 1985. 6. The applicant reenlisted in the USAR on 6 July 1987 for a period of 6 years with the 646th Quartermaster Company, his troop program unit of assignment. 7. It appears the applicant entered active duty on an unknown date and was released from active duty on or about 21 November 1990. His DD Form 214 for this period is not available for review; however, Orders 325-208, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command & Fort Lee, Fort Lee, VA on 21 November 1990, show: a. The applicant was reassigned to U.S. Army Transition Point, effective 21 November 1990 for transition processing. After processing, he was released from active duty not by reason of physical disability, and assigned to 300th Chemical Company, Morgantown, WV. b. The additional instructions state, "Soldier is being reassigned for further medical evaluation and processing." 8. The applicant's record contains the following documents: a. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Action (FLAG)), dated 2 September 1990, which shows a flag was initiated against him on 2 September 1990, due to his entrance into the Army Weight Control Program. b. DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 19 November 1990, which shows he was issued a temporary physical profile based on his alcohol dependence, with an expiration date of 1 February 1991. This document shows his PULHES (acronym used to address factors comprising the Military Physical Profile Serial System) as "1-1-1-1-1-T2"; the "T2" was issued to assess his competence within the "S" (Psychiatric) factor. c. A memorandum from the 99th USAR Command Surgeon, dated 9 June 1991, subject: Review of Medical Records of Individuals Returned from Mobilized Units. This memorandum states the applicant's medical records were reviewed as a result of his return from a unit mobilized in support of Operation Desert Storm with the following comments and recommendation: (1) "ST2 under [physical examination] will require treatment and close follow up." It is presumed this comment refers to his DA Form 3349, in which he received a "T2" rating for his "S" factor due to his alcohol dependence. (2) RETAIN: Medical profile does not prevent further service in the USAR. 9. Orders 061-328, issued by Headquarters, 99th USAR Command on 8 December 1991, relieved the applicant from the 646th Quartermaster Company and reassigned him to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), by reason of "voluntary (work conflict)," effective 1 January 1992. 10. Orders D-07-355828, issued by USAR Personnel Center, dated 6 July 1993, honorably discharged the applicant from the Ready Reserve under the authority of Army Regulation 135-178 (ARNG and Army Reserve – Enlisted Administrative Separations), effective 6 July 1993. 11. The applicant's available record reveals no documentation that shows he was determined to be medically unfit or that shows he was referred by his command to the Army PDES at the time of his separation from active duty. Additionally, his record is void of evidence that would indicate either an MOS Medical Retention Board (MMRB) or a Fitness for Duty Determination Board (FFDDB) considered his fitness for further service prior to his discharge from the USAR. 12. On July 2016, the staff of the Board sent the applicant a letter requesting copies of his Army medical records and if treated at the VA, copies of his VA medical treatment records. His application was placed on hold to allow him time to respond. It appears he did not respond or provide the requested medical evidence to support his application. 13. In connection with processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 9 November 2016 from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Senior Medical Advisor. The medical advisory opinion states: a. The applicant is petitioning for a medical evaluation and processing. He refers to an "illness" but does not specify the illness. He states he was so mentally unstable that he was unable to properly find help to complete documents and seek help. It was only 5 years ago that a drug was found to treat his condition by the VA and he has been slowly coming back to a stable mental status. However, he has not provided medical records or VA documentation in support of his petition. b. A review of the applicant's electronic medical record (AHLTA) revealed no records. (It is noted that AHLTA implementation began in 2003). c. The applicant met medical retention standards in accordance with chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), and following the provisions set forth in Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. A review of the applicant's records noted only one temporary profile, written on 19 November 1990, for alcohol dependence. d. The applicant's medical conditions were duly considered during his separation processing. The only medical condition found was alcohol dependence. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in his case. 14. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on or about 9 November 2016, to afford him the opportunity to respond to its content. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is what the Army did was correct. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, and separation (including retirement.) Chapter 3 provides the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standards required for the individual in paragraph 3-2, below. These medical conditions and physical defects, individually or in combination: * significantly limit or interfere with the Soldier's performance of duties * may compromise or aggravate the Soldier's health or well-being if the Soldier remains in the military – this may involve dependence on certain medications, appliances, severe dietary restrictions, frequent special treatments, or a requirement for frequent clinical monitoring * may compromise the health or well-being of other Soldiers * may prejudice the best interests of the government if the individuals were to remain in the military service 3. Army Regulation 635-40 prescribes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply 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. It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status. A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. DISCUSSION: 1. It appears the applicant is requesting a medical evaluation through entry into the PDES. 2. The available evidence shows the applicant had only one medical condition that was documented on a temporary physical profile – alcohol dependence. This one condition did not preclude him from satisfactorily performing his duties of his grade and specialty; therefore, there was no basis for his command to refer him into the PDES. This is confirmed the medical advisory opinion. 3. He contends he had medical conditions that, if properly treated, would not have worsened. However, he does not state what those medical conditions are nor does he provide any medical documentation from the VA, which he stated had been treating him for years. 4. Both his active and Reserve separations appear to have been conducted in accordance with governing law and regulations at that time. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs. In view of the circumstances and absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, there appears to be no error or injustice in this case. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015789 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015789 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2