ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 October 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170005555 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * Block (Line) 27 (Remarks) on his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period ending 11 August 1975 be verified if correct * if correct, issue a letter stating the record is correct * if not correct, issue a revised DD Form 214 and leave block 27 blank * a certified copy of the DD Form 214 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Standard Form (SF) 502 (Narrative Summary) (NARSUM) * SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) * DD Form 214 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 states: a. He was told by the Veterans Administration (VA) loan officer block 27 should be blank. A copy issued by the National Personnel Records Center shows medical under remarks. b. He received an honorable medical discharge, and a copy of SF 502 (NARSUM) dated 31 July 1975 signed by Major X___ X___ recommending presentation to the medical board for consideration of separation under Army regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). He does not know if this was an error or not. He does not want to be accused of fraud. He did not issue the DD Form 214. He does have a medical discharge. a. 3. The applicant provides: a. His SF Form 88, dated 30 July 1975, that shows his time in service was 1 month and 3 weeks at time of the examination. The clinical evaluation was normal except for a chronic lumbosacral strain. b. His SF 502 NARSUM, dated 31 July 1975, that shows EPTS (existed prior to service) under Date of Discharge. He entered active duty on 10 June 1975. He did not meet induction standards and was recommended for presentation to a medical board for consideration of separation. c. His DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged with an honorable character of service. Block (Line) 27 under remarks includes the word MEDICAL. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. His U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) pre-enlistment SF 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 24 October 1974, shows he stated he was in good health, and indicated Recurrent back pain - No. b. His pre-enlistment SF 88, dated 24 October 1974, shows his spine was normal, and he was qualified for service. c. He enlisted in the USAR on 26 November 1974 for 6 years. d. Letter Orders # LO T-05-481, dated 23 May 1975, published by Headquarters, First U.S. Army, Fort Meade, MD, shows he was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) at Fort Polk, LA. His report date was 10 June 1975 for basic combat training (BCT) that started on 20 June 1975. e. On 25 June 1975, his BCT immediate commander, requested the applicant be transferred due to his 14 day profile, and that he be recycled with another BCT company in the first week of their training. He was transferred and physically moved on 25 June 1975. f. DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form) dated 30 July 1975, the applicant requested a discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-9 of AR 635-200 for reason of erroneous enlistment. He did not meet enlistment standards prescribed in chapter 2 of AR 40-501 (Medical Services – Standards of Medical Fitness). g. On 1 August 1975, the applicant’s medical board (MEB) was completed, which determined he was medically fit for further military service in accordance with the current medical fitness standards at the time. He was diagnosed with a chronic lumbosacral strain, which the MEB said was an EPTS condition that had its onset prior to the applicant entering service. He was returned to duty for separation under the a. provisions of AR 635-200. The applicant was informed of the findings and recommendations of the board. h. Special Orders # 220, dated 8 August 1975, published by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Polk, relieved him from ADT and discharged him from the Reserve of the Army effective 11 August 1975. i. DA Form 3082 (Statement of Medical Condition) dated 11 August 1975, shows the applicant stated the pain in his back had increased and produces such pain when he bent forward, and that he could not sleep at night. j. His service records contains 3 separate versions of his DD Form 214 that show the following information in Block 27 (Remarks) with same effective date of 11 August 1975 and a honorable discharge : (1) Blank, with applicant’s signature (2) MEDICAL, with applicant’s signature (3) MEDICAL AR 635-200 EPTS SPD: JFT RE-4 5. By regulation, AR 635-200, paragraph 5-9 (Discharge of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards) provides that individuals who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for initial enlistment will be discharged when a medical board, regardless of the date completed, establishes that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 4 months of the member’s initial entrance on active duty or ADT under the Reserve Enlistment Program of 1963, which * Would have permanently disqualified him for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time; and * Does not disqualify him for retention in the military service under the provisions of chapter 3, AR 40-501 (Medical Service – Standards of Medical Fitness) 6. Army Regulation (AR) 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214, which is a synopsis of the Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. 7. Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. 1. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined relief was warranted. Based upon a review of the applicant’s DD Form 214, the Board concluded that removing the entry from block 27 and relocating it to block 9c was more appropriate. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 X X X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 by: * Replacing current entry in block 9c with “AR635-200 EPTS - MEDICAL” * Replacing current entry in block 10 with “4” * Removing the entry “MEDICAL, AR 635-200 EPTS SPD: JFT RE-4” from block 27 11/5/2019 X 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 (Discharge of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards) provides that individuals who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for initial enlistment will be discharged when a medical board, regardless of the date completed, establishes that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 4 months of the member’s initial entrance on active duty or ADT under the Reserve Enlistment Program of 1963. 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active service. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or 1. discharge, and is not intended to have any legal effect on termination of a Soldier's service. a. Paragraph 2-7 (Preparation instructions) provides an item-by-item instruction for entries on the DD Form 214. b. Paragraph 2-7ah Item 27 (Remarks) this section will be used for entries authorized by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) for which a separate item is not available on the DD Form 214, and to complete entries too long for their respective blocks. 4. Army Regulation (AR) 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 that what the Army did was correct. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.