BOARD DATE: 6 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004155 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: 6 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004155 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: 6 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004155 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 her uncharacterized discharge to an honorable, general, or medical discharge. She also requests a personal hearing before the Board. 2. The applicant states she is a Reservist who signed under the Delayed Entry [Program] (DEP). She took the oath and began her Reserve work. In September 2000, she was driven to a hotel to sign in. During physical training, she was discharged. She is now a homeless mother who has been told she is also a veteran. She needs help resolving this issue. 3. The applicant provides her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 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 U.S. Army Reserve for 8 years on 3 May 2000. She agreed to serve for 6 years in a troop program unit and 2 years as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve. 3. On 21 September 2000, she entered active duty for training (ADT) and she was assigned to Company A, 120th Adjutant General Reception Battalion, Fort Jackson, SC. 4. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge are not available for review with this case. However, her records contain: a. Orders 284-1306, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, on 10 October 2000, ordering her discharge from active duty effective 11 October 2000 by authority of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). b. Her DD Form 214 showing she was discharged on 11 October 2000 under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of failing to meet medical procurement standards. 5. Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 21 days of creditable active service. It also shows in: * item 24 (Character of Service) – Uncharacterized * item 26 (Separation Code) – JFW 6. On 21 March 2016, a staff member of the Army Review Boards Agency communicated with the applicant via letter and requested she provide any documentation regarding her mental health, a copy of her DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standard Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), Department of Veterans Affairs medical records, and any other related record. She did not respond. 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 duty 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 JFW is the correct code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11. 3. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. By regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 2. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge are not available for review with this case. However, her DD Form 214 shows she did not enlist in the DEP as she believes. She enlisted in the USAR on 3 May 2000. She entered active duty on 21 September 2000 and she was discharged some 21 days later on 11 October 2000 by reason of failing medical procurement standards. 3. It appears while in training, medical authorities identified a preexisting condition that failed procurement standards. Since she failed medical procurement standards, separation action would have been initiated against her. She would have been advised of her 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 her discharge was improper or inequitable. 4. Because this condition was identified within her first 180 days of service, her discharge was appropriately uncharacterized, as an entry-level separation. All requirements of law and regulation were presumably met and the rights of the applicant were presumably protected throughout the separation process. 5. The uncharacterized service is assigned regardless of the reason for separation. This 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. The applicant received the appropriate characterization of service. 6. Her narrative reason for separation was assigned based on the fact that she was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200 by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards. The separation code associated with this type of discharge is "JFW" and the only narrative reason associated with this type of separation is "Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards." She clearly received the appropriate narrative reason for separation and there is no evidence that would support changing it. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004155 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004155 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2