ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Record of Proceedings BOARD DATE: 18 August 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180008700 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Upgrade his service from uncharacterized to fully honorable and change his: a. Narrative reason for separation from, “Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards” to “Convenience of the Government.” b. Reentry (RE) Code from RE-3 to RE-1. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings) * Enlistment Contract * Personal Data * Orders 275-366 and Orders 137-05 * Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Election * Record of Military Processing * Special Training Package Document 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 he was in perfect health when he joined the Army. He did not have a, “congenital family problem with tailbone coccyx.” His Military Entrance Processing (MEPS) record shows he had no problems. Coccyx has ruined his back, “DD Disease L-4 – L5.” He believes the military is responsible for his back problems. His back problem has ruined his life physically and mentally, and affected his ability to obtain the jobs he wanted. Additionally, he states: He told the doctor who treated him that his coccyx and entire back was in pain, due to a fall. The doctor was in such a hurry to get him out of his office that he got his social security number wrong on his medical forms. 3. The doctor wrote that “he had a long history of congenital protuberant coccyx in his family. But he did not tell the doctor this, nor did he tell the MEPS this. He became tangled with another [person and rolled down a hill. This caused a cracked coccyx that healed. But the doctor said there had been no injury or “paresthesia.” He has experienced a life of pain and is now on Social Security Disability. He requests respect for a guy, who tried and was injured do to no fault of his own. He requests that his uncharacterized be changed so that he can support his family. 4. The applicant's service records show: a. He enlisted into the U.S. Army National Guard (ARNG), on 10 July 1995, for an 8-year term. He was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT), on 6 September 1995, and was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, for basic training. b. EPSBD Proceedings, dated 22 September 1995, found after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examination that the applicant was medically unfit for appointment or enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition was an EPTS condition. He had the following medical conditions and/or physical defects (brief narrative summary). (1) Chief Complaint: Coccyx pain. (2) History of Present Illness: He was an 18-year-old white male with a family history of congenital protuberant coccyx. He has a long history of coccygeal pain with drainage from the area. There has been no injury or paresthesias noted. Any type of flutter kicks, sit-ups or rubbing on the area causes him to have increased pain and discharge from this area. (3) Military History: He was in his first week of basic training at Ft. Leonard Wood. (4) Physical Examination: Examination of his spine revealed fulI active range of motion. There was a protuberant coccyx with an overlying increase in soft tissue with erythema and tenderness noted in the coccygeal area. There was no discharge noted at this time. Sensation of the lower extremities were intact. (5) X-Ray: Radiographs of his coccyx were within normal Iimits. There was no fracture or dislocation noted. (6) Impression: Congenital protuberant coccyx, EPTS CoccygeaI pain secondary to #1, EPTS (7) The EPSBD recommended separation due to An EPTS medical condition. On 25 September 1995, the findings were approved. 5. On 28 September 1995, the applicant concurred with the EPSDB findings and requested discharge. On the same date, the separation authority directed the applicant's discharge. 6. On 4 October 1995, the applicant was discharged under AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11 (Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards) with uncharacterized service. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 29 days of net active service. The DD Form 214 also shows in: * Item 26 (Separation Code), the separation program designator (SPD) code "JFW" * Item 27 (Reentry Code), the RE code of "3" 7. On 4 October 1995, he was discharged from the Iowa ARNG with uncharacterized service. 8. Army Regulation (AR) 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The SPD code "JFW" is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of "failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards." 9. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table stipulates the RE code "3" was to be assigned to members separated with the SPD code of "JFW." 10. Army Regulation (AR), in effect at the time, stated commanders were to separate Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when they enlisted. EPSBD proceedings were required to be convened within the Soldier's first 6 months of active duty service, and had to establish the following: that medical authority had identified the disqualifying medical condition(s) within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entry on active duty; that the condition(s) would have permanently disqualified the Soldier from entry into military service, had they been detected earlier; and that the medical condition did not disqualify him/her for retention in military service. A Soldier disqualified under this provision could request retention on active duty; the separation authority made the final determination. a. AR 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that 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 or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated. Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty and will result in an EPSB. The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the Soldier is in an entry level status. On a case-by-case basis, Headquarters, Department of the Army could direct the issuance of an honorable character of service when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and/or duty performance. b. The evidence shows he received an uncharacterized character of service because he was separated while in an entry level status (within 180 days of date entered on active duty). 9. An uncharacterized discharge 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 character of service to be rated. 10. The SPD code "JFW" and the RE code of 3 are the appropriate codes to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of "failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards." 11. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application, a DA Form 4707, Enlistment Contract, Personal Data, Orders 275-366 and Orders 137-05, and Record of Military Processing. 12. Regarding the applicant’s contention that he was healthy; he fell and hurt his back while on active duty. He did not have a, “congenital family problem with tailbone coccyx.” His MEPS record does not show he had problems. He believes the military is responsible for his back problems, which has ruined his life physically and mentally, and affected his ability to obtain specific jobs. He also states he told the doctor who treated him that his coccyx and entire back was in pain, due to a fall. The doctor was in such a hurry to get him out of his office that he got his social security number wrong on his medical forms. He did not have a long history of congenital protuberant coccyx in his family. He became tangled with another [person and rolled down a hill. This caused a cracked coccyx that healed. But the doctor said there had been no injury or “paresthesias.” He has experienced a life of pain and is now on Social Security Disability. He requests respect for a guy, who tried and was injured do to no fault of his own. He requests that his uncharacterized be changed so that he can support his family. His social security number on his DA Form 4707 is incorrectly listed as 403-xx-xxxx. His correct social security number is 483-xx-xxxx. 13. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his submissions, service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 14. Based on the applicant's contention the Army Review Board Agency medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members. See "MEDICAL REVIEW" section. MEDICAL REVIEW: 1. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). 2. The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: The applicant is applying to the ABCMR in essence requesting a referral to the Disability Evaluation system (DES) and an upgrade of his uncharacterized 4 October 1995 discharge from the Army. He states “I was in full perfect health when joining. I did not have a congenital family problem with tailbone (coccyx). My MEPS records show that no problems on the day until I actually broke my coccyx and it has ruined my back. Degenerative disc disease L4-L5.” 3 There is no medical documentation, to include the applicant’s pre-enlistment medical history and physical exam, in the supporting documents, electronic health records, or iPERMS. Supporting documents show he was referred to an Entrance Physical Standards Board convened IAW paragraph 7-12 of AR 40-400, Patient Administration, for a painful coccyx. 4. This process is for enlisted Soldiers who within their first 6 months of active service are found to have a preexisting condition which does not meet the enlistment standard in chapter 2 of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness, but does meet the chapter 3 retention standard of the same regulation. The fourth criterion for this process is that the preexisting condition was not permanently service aggravated. 5. The board convened on 22 September 1995 and noted his history since enlistment: This is an 18-year-old white male with a family history of congenital protuberant coccyx. He has a long history of coccygeal pain with drainage from the area. There has been no injury or paresthesias noted. Any type of flutter kicks, sit-ups or rubbing on the area causes him to have increase in pain and discharge from this area … He is currently in his first week of basic training at Ft. Leonard Wood.” 6. There was no mention of an acute injury which would have been expected if fracture had been the mechanism of injury. His exam revealed: “There is a protuberant coccyx with an overlying increase in soft tissue with erythema and tenderness noted in the coccygeal area. There is no discharge noted at this time. … Radiographs of his coccyx are within normal Iimits. There is no fracture or dislocation noted.” 7. The board determined correctly that the applicant did fail chapter 2 enlistment standards yet met chapter 3 retention standards of AR 40-501 (30 August 1995). Given his one week in the Army, they also correctly determined that this condition had not been permanently service aggravated. The applicant concurred with the board’s finding and requested “to be discharged from the US Army without delay.” With the board’s finding, the applicant was then appropriately processed under the provisions of paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200. 8. Given the current documentation, it is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that neither an upgrade of his discharge nor a referral of his case to the DES is warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, including the applicant’s statement and the ARBA Medical Advisory Opinion, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The applicant attended BCT and was on active duty for less than one month before separating. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated within the first 180 days of service, while a Soldier is in entry-level status. The applicant underwent an Entrance Physical Standards Board on 22 September 1995, while in BCT. The Board determined the applicant’s condition failed chapter 2 enlistment standards yet met chapter 3 retention standards of AR 40- 501 (30 August 1995). Given his one week in the Army, they also correctly determined that this condition had not been permanently service aggravated. Therefore, the ABCMR found that the applicant’s DD Form 214 properly shows his service as uncharacterized, with a proper narrative reason and RE code. 2. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION 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 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): NA 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. AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The SPD code "JFW" is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of "failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards." 3. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table stipulates that RE code "3" would be assigned to members separated with the SPD code of "JFW." 4. AR 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the USAR. Table 3-1 includes a list of the RA RE codes: a. RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. They are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. b. RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. They are ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 5. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. a. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. An uncharacterized separation stated that Soldiers separated in an entry-level status would receive an uncharacterized character of service. A separation is an entry level status separation if its processing is initiated during the Soldier's first 180 days of continuous active service. The Secretary of the Army could, on a case-by-case basis, issue an honorable character of service to entry-level Soldiers when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or duty performance. d. Paragraph 5-11 specifically provided that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment were to be separated. EPSBD proceedings were required to be convened within the Soldier's first 6 months of active duty service, and had to establish the following: that medical authority identified the disqualifying medical condition(s) within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty; that the condition(s) would have permanently disqualified the Soldier from entry into military service, had it been detected earlier; and that the medical condition did not disqualify him/her for retention in military service. A Soldier disqualified under this provision could request retention on active duty; the separation authority made the final determination. 3. AR 635-40, in effect at the time, governed the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers would might be unfit to perform their military duties due to a disability. It states the mere presence of an impairment did not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness due to physical disability. In each case, it was necessary to compare the nature and degree of the physical disability with the duty requirements of the soldier, based on his or her office, grade, rank, or rating; and a Soldier was presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering active duty. 4. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//