BOARD DATE: 15 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003253 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: 15 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003253 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: 15 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003253 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 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his character of service as honorable. He also requests consideration by a medical evaluation board (MEB). 2. The applicant states: a. His discharge status needs to be upgraded to honorable. He was discharged from active duty for a physical or mental condition that was not characterized as a disability and it did not result from his own willful misconduct, but it did interfere with his performance of duty. b. He feels he was discharged from the military without the option to appear before an MEB. He was young and coerced into signing documents he was not familiar with nor did he have representation. c. He was not injured prior to his service and there is no documentation, but it has been written into his military records from hearsay. He passed his physical entrance examination. He is providing his sick call notes and documentation that clearly show he contracted a dental infection which resulted in him suffering from fever with chills that was later elevated to chest pain and premature ventricular contractions which were later identified as encarditis. He was scheduled for follow-up care, both with a dentist and cardiologist, that he was not allowed to receive, nor was he allowed to receive the proper medications. He almost died due to this procedure. He saved his own life by refusing to participate in training. When he arrived at the hospital, the staff stated he made it just in time. He was then airlifted to the Missouri Health Sciences Center for a heart condition. Immediately following his attempt at recovery, the military began the process of releasing him from active duty without due process because of his feet issues. He had been asking for stress tests due to his heart and chest pains, but was refused. He feels the military did not want to address his situations and instead chose to release him inappropriately. d. He was not given the opportunity to present his case to an MEB prior to his discharge. e. He is requesting a change to his discharge status so he may be eligible for all benefits due to him. 3. The applicant provides: * two undated self-authored letters * undated letter from his high school football and track coach * service medical records * first page of DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), dated 4 January 2000 * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 4 January 2000 * medical records * letter from a cardiologist, dated 9 November 1999 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 underwent an enlistment physical examination on 23 August 1999. His Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 23 August 1999, shows his feet were rated abnormal with mild pes planus, asymptomatic. 3. His Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 23 August 1999, shows he reported "NO" in item 11 (Have You Ever Had or Have You Now – Foot Trouble). 4. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 September 1999 for a period of 3 years. 5. He provided a letter from a cardiologist, dated 9 November 1999, stating: a. The applicant had a partial dental extraction on 3 November 1999. He began having fever with chills and was seen in the emergency room at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. He had an elevated white count and brief systolic murmur. He also complained of chest pain and premature ventricular contractions and was referred to the cardiology service at the University Hospital. b. His course at the hospital was unremarkable. In checking on his blood cultures, they have all been negative. An echocardiogram showed no evidence of vegetation and only mild mitral regurgitation. His premature ventricular contractions were completely benign. They were originating from the right ventricular outflow tract, and as his fever improved, they became less frequent. His chest pain had also resolved as the premature ventricular contractions lessened. c. He was seen in consultation by a dentist who reviewed his x-rays and did not feel that further extraction was warranted. He recommended further follow-up by the emergency room physician at Fort Leonard Wood who had the advantage of his preoperative x-rays. 6. He provided a DA Form 5181-R (Screening Note of Acute Medical Care), dated 4 January 2000, showing the attending podiatrist stated his bilateral pes planus existed prior to service. This form shows the entry "EPTS – High School Football – lift wts [weights]." 7. He provided the first page of a DA Form 4707, dated 4 January 2000, showing he was diagnosed as having bilateral pes planus, symptomatic, which existed prior to service. This form stated he reported he tried to play football in high school, but was only able to lift weights due to bilateral foot pain. 8. The EPSBD found him medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and determined his condition existed prior to service. 9. On 21 January 2000, he was discharged for failing to meet procurement medical fitness standards under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11. He completed 3 months and 22 days of creditable active service. 10. Item 24 (Character of Service) of his DD Form 214 shows the entry "UNCHARACTERIZED." 11. There is no evidence showing he was processed through the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System during his active military service. 12. An advisory opinion was rendered by the Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor, dated 6 September 2016, wherein he stated: a. A review of the applicant's electronic medical record revealed no encounters, radiology, laboratory, or clinical notes. b. He did not meet medical procurement standards. c. His medical conditions were considered during medical separation processing. d. 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 discharge in this case. 13. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and possible rebuttal. 14. In an undated letter, he stated: a. During his enlistment physical examination he reported no foot trouble because he was perfectly fine before he started having trauma with his feet due to the aggravation of vigorous service fitness requirements. His Report of Medical Examination shows a circle around item 36 (Feet) and the description of the abnormality noted asymptomatic mild pes planus. He thinks the circle around feet on this form was a mistake because his foot condition was acceptable enough for him to enlist. b. The podiatrist noted on 4 January 2000 that he was given Motrin, a topical antifungal cream (code 5), and arch supports, but there was no help for his feet. He had pain on stance, athlete's foot, and interdigital maceration (fungal infection) in both feet. The podiatrist also noted there was no trauma. c. In a Screening Note of Acute Medical Care, dated 4 January 2000, the podiatrist noted he was given amoxicillin, he had an injury prior to service, and that he could not play high school football, but he could lift weights. The podiatrist's statement is the reason his foot condition was diagnosed as having existed prior to service. That is a false statement. He provided a letter from his high school football coach stating he played football and ran track. He wants the existed prior to service diagnosis overturned due to lack of evidence by the podiatry services and the false and unfair findings. d. He understands the military does not want to take responsibility because they do not want to pay him. It is easier for them to say he had an injury prior to service, but that is an injustice to him because he did not concur with the discharge. He was 24 years old and had been through a traumatic event. He no longer trusted the military since he almost died due to a tooth extraction event. He did not pay attention to the box that was checked. He trusted that the military would do right by him. 15. In a second undated letter, he stated: a. He was discharged from the military because of his flat feet and received an uncharacterized discharge. He feels his discharge was wrongful and unjustified because he did not have an injury prior to service. There is no prior history of him having any kind of feet problems prior to service. He took a physical examination and passed with no problems. The military said he told them he could not play football in high school and could only lift weights, which is untrue. b. His injuries occurred while he was training and were aggravated due to the boots, hiking, and the 5-mile runs. There is evidence in his military records that he started having problems with his feet while he was on active duty. He was medically boarded out without an opportunity to plead his case. He disagrees with these proceedings because his condition was not disqualifying upon his entrance, it was aggravated by service-specific medical evidence. c. There is no medical history of him having bad feet prior to his military service. d. He wants his uncharacterized discharge upgraded to honorable because there was no injury prior to his service. Somehow the wrong box was checked and the wrong information was provided. 15. He provided an undated letter from his high school football and track coach who stating the applicant played football from 1991 to 1994 and he was a member of the track team all 4 years. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-11 states Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entrance on active duty, active duty training, or initial entry training will be separated. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by the 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 in the military service had it been detected at that time, and that the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. The character of service for Soldiers separated under this provision will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the Soldier is in an entry-level status. Entry-level status is defined as the first 180 days of continuous active duty or the first 180 days of continuous active service after a service break of more than 92 days. b. Chapter 3 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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. 2. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation) governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. This regulation provides that the servicing medical treatment facility (MTF) will provide a thorough and prompt evaluation when a Soldier's condition becomes questionable in respect to physical ability to perform duty. Unit commanders will ensure that any physical defects impacting a Soldier's performance of duty are reflected in the Soldier's evaluation report and refer the Soldier to the servicing MTF for medical evaluation when the Soldier is believed to be unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. The MTF commander having primary medical care responsibility will conduct an examination of the Soldier referred for evaluation. If it appears that the Soldier is not medically qualified to perform duty, the MTF commander will refer the Soldier to an MEB. The MEB will recommend referral to a PEB of those Soldiers who do not meet medical retention standards. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends he did not have bad feet prior to his entry on active duty. However, his Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 23 August 1999, shows his feet were rated abnormal with asymptomatic mild pes planus. 2. He contends the attending podiatrist in January 2000 made a false statement that he had an injury prior to his service by stating he could not play football, but could only lift weights. The letter from his high school football coach attesting to his football and track performance throughout high school was carefully considered. However, his DA Form 4707 states he reported he tried to play football in high school, but was only able to lift weights due to bilateral foot pain. 3. The evidence of record shows he was diagnosed as having symptomatic bilateral pes planus, which existed prior to service. The EPSBD found him medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and determined his condition existed prior to service. He was discharged for failing medical/physical procurement standards. 4. Since he was in an entry-level status when he was released from active duty in 2000, his service was uncharacterized. This is properly reflected in item 24 of his DD Form 214. 5. Uncharacterized service is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for his or her service characterization to be rated. 6. He contends he should have been considered by an MEB for his feet and a heart condition. However, the November 1999 letter he provided from the cardiologist stated: a. An echocardiogram showed no evidence of vegetation and only mild mitral regurgitation. b. His premature ventricular contractions were completely benign. They were originating from the right ventricular outflow tract, and they became less frequent as his fever improved. c. His chest pain also resolved as the premature ventricular contractions lessened. 7. In his medical advisory opinion, the Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor stated the applicant's medical conditions were considered during medical separation processing and there was no evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for his discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003253 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003253 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2