ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160014539 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, correction of his military records to enable him to get a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Home Loan. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * VA service-connection for eyes/vision * VA service-connection letter FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant stares he was denied a VA home loan because his discharge was under 90 days from entry to separation. Due to blindness during basic training, he feels he should be eligible for the VA home loan as he is receiving 100% service-connected disability from the VA. 3. The applicant provides his VA rating decision that shows he is receiving 100% disability compensation for Uveitus, bilateral, posterior synechia in both eyes. 4. Review of the applicant's service records shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 November 1969. He was assigned to Fort Order, CA for training. b. On 14 December 1969, he submitted an application for separation in accordance with paragraph 5-9 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted a. Personnel). He indicated he felt he did not meet applicable medical fitness standards for induction in effect at the time of his enlistment. c. On 15 December 1969, the separation authority approved his discharge and ordered his service be characterized as honorable. d. On 22 December 1969, he underwent a separation medical examination. No medical issues were raised or detected. e. He was honorably discharged from active duty on 22 December 1969. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 month and 16 days of active service. 5. On 25 June 2018, the Army Review Boards Agency senior medical advisor reviewed his case to determine if there were any alleged medical condition(s) that warranted separation through medical channels or medical condition(s) not considered during medical separation processing. The medical advisor opined: a. The applicant's record does not reasonably support PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) or another boardable behavioral health condition(s) existed at the time of the applicant's military service b. The applicant did not meet medical accession standards for EPTS (existed prior to service) bilateral uveitisliritis, in accordance with chapter 2, AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and following the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 (Disability Evaluation for Retention, Retirement or Separation) were applicable to the applicant's era of service. c. The applicant met medical retention standards for all other medical, physical, dental and/or behavioral conditions in accordance with chapter 3, AR 40-501 and AR 635-40 that were applicable to his era of service. d. His medical conditions were duly considered during medical separation processing. This applicant clearly did not meet medical procurement or accession/enlistment standards based on this single, available for review, eye evaluation note. e. 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 this case. 6. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion to give him an opportunity to submit a statement and/or rebuttal. He did not respond. 7. By regulation (AR 635-200), Soldiers who entered active duty with a medical condition that was disqualifying under the procurement (enlistment) medical fitness 1. standards, but not disqualifying under retention standards, could either submit a request for discharge or sign a statement saying that they wanted to complete their enlistment or induction. The applicant elected discharge. 8. Establishing entitlement or eligibility for programs or benefits administrated by other agencies, including home loans by the VA, is not within the purview of this Board. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that full relief was not warranted. This determination is based on the advisory opinion finding no evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge and because it found that the applicant’s eye condition was a pre-existing. However, in the interest of fairness to both the former service member and the Army, given that it is not clear to the extent that the applicant’s Service contributed to the claimed eye injuries, the Board decided to refer the case to the Office of the Surgeon General for an additional review to determine whether a change in medical discharge was warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF X X X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined it could not grant full relief of the applicant’s request; however, based on the evidence presented, in the interest of fairness, the Board decided to refer the case to the Office of the Surgeon General to determine whether a change in medical discharge was warranted. x 4/12/2019 CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-9, in effect at the time, stated that Soldiers who entered on active duty with a medical condition that was disqualifying under the procurement (enlistment) medical fitness standards, but not disqualifying under retention standards, could either submit a request for discharge or sign a statement saying that they wanted to complete their enlistment or induction.