IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 September 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180008754 APPLICANT REQUESTS: A change of his narrative reason for separation from, “Discharge of Personnel Who Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards,” to a more appropriate reason and annotation of item 16 (High School Graduate or Equivalent) to show “YES” in lieu of “NO.” APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * General Education Diploma (GED) Certificate and Test Scores * Letter of Conservatorship of Estate * Letter and Court Order-Resignation of Conservatorship * Power of Attorney * Certificate of Death * Psychiatric Evaluation, 28 December 2016 * Letter from the Community Counseling Center, Cape Girardeau, MO 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 did not receive an appropriate diagnosis or treatment from the Army nor any other component. He was not properly treated until May 2009, which was after he was discharged. He also received his GED, on 18 June 1979, [prior to enlistment]. He believes the requested corrections will end the abuse and exploitation that the endured. 3. The applicant's service records show he enlisted in the U.S. Army National Guard (ARNG), on 6 May 1979, for a 6-year term. He was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT), and he was transferred to Fort Sill, OK, for basic training on 2 January 1980. 4. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge process to include his Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings are not available for review with this case; however, the evidence does contain a: a. Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 28 August 1979, prepared at the time of enlistment showing all of his clinical evaluations were normal. However, he had identifying body marks, scars, and tattoos that were abnormal. He was determined to be qualified for enlistment in the ARNG. b. SF 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 28 August 1979, also showing he stated he was in good health and he was on no medication. The noted conditions listed on this form are eye trouble, hay fever, and that he wore glasses or contact lenses. Additionally, this form noted he indicated he had been hospitalized for a nervous condition in 1976. c. SF 88, dated 6 July 1983,prepared at the time of separation describing the reason for examination as Quadrennial Examination. His abnormalities are listed as poor personal hygiene and pes planus (mild). He was being prescribed Endep 150 milligrams (MG) and Navene 10 MG. His defective vision was corrected; he was overweight by training standards; and he had a recent psychotic episode requiring prolonged hospitalization. He was found, “not Qualified for Quadrennial.” d. SF 93, dated 6 July 1983, prepared at the time of the Quadrennial Examination [quality of life examination for members of the Armed Forces]. showing he stated he was in good health. He was being prescribed Endep 150 MG and Navene 10 MG, one time a day. This form shows the following are marked “Yes” in: (1) Item 9, attempted suicide. (2) Item 10, he wore glasses and had vision in both eyes. (3) Item 11, frequent or severe headaches, hay fever; stomach liver, or intestinal trouble; adverse reaction to serum, drug or medicine; tumor; broken bones; and ruptured/hernia. (4) Item 16, he had been a patient in a psychiatric ward at the Baptist Memorial Hospital and a patient at the Western Mental Health Institute for severe depression. (5) Item 18, he had an appendectomy in approximately April 1978. (6) Item 19, he was a patient at Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, TN, for a hip tumor. He was also hospitalized at Western Mental Health Institute for severe depression in October 1982. (7) Item 23, he was discharged from the ARNG in January 1980 for a nervous stomach. (8) Item 25, he was hospitalized 10 months for depression. e. DD Form 214 showing on 31 January 1980, he was discharged under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-7c(2), in pay grade E-1. He completed 29 days of active military service. His DD Form 214 also shows in: * (Character of Service), Honorable * (Narrative Reason for Separation), (Discharge of Personnel Who Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards) * (Awards and Decorations), NA * High School Graduate or Equivalent, “NO” * (Signature of Member Being Separated), his signature * Separation Code, "JFT" * Reenlistment Code, RE-3 5. Order 44-7, Office of The Adjutant General, National Guard Armory, Nashville, TN, show he was honorably discharged him from the ARNG, effective 31 January 1980. An NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) confirms he was honorably discharged from the Tennessee ARNG on this date. 6. The applicant's record is void of the complete specific circumstances surrounding his discharge; however, based on the available evidence he was found not to have met procurement medical fitness standards, as a result, he was honorably discharged with an SPD code of "JFT" and an RE code of "3." He was assigned these codes because he was separated while in an entry level status (within 180 days of date entered on active duty). 7. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-11, currently in effect, states 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. 8. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) 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. Currently, the characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of this 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. 9. AR 635-200, in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge, required Soldiers to be separated when they did not meet procurement medical fitness standards. Medical proceedings had to establish that medical authority identified the disqualifying medical condition(s) within 4 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty; that the condition(s) would have permanently disqualified him from entry into military service, had it been detected earlier; and that the medical condition did not disqualify him for retention in military service. a. The regulation stated Soldiers who failed medical retention standards were to be processed under the provisions of AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). b. Effective 1 October 1982, a revision of AR 635-200 required Soldiers in an entry- level status (i.e. the first 180 days months of continuous active duty service) to receive an uncharacterized character of service. (1) The Secretary of the Army could, on a case-by-case basis, issue an honorable character of service to entry-level Soldiers when it was clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or duty performance. (2) At the time of the applicant's separation, AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) stated the only authorized entries, with regard to character of service, were: Honorable, Under Honorable Conditions (General), Under Other than Honorable Conditions, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. Uncharacterized characters of service were not added to AR 635-5 until the publishing of an interim change, dated 2 October 1989. 10. AR 635-5 stated AR 635-5-1 (SPD) was the authority for determining the correct SPD code on a Soldier's separation document. The version of AR 635-5-1 (SPD) in effect at the time stated Soldiers separated under the provisions of AR635-200, paragraph 5-7c(2), currently paragraph 5-11, were to be assigned the SPD of "JFT," and the narrative reason of “Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards.” 11. The applicant provides a: a. Department of Education Equivalency Diploma showing he completed the requirements of the GED Program on 18 June 1979, which was after he entered the ARNG, but before his entry on active duty. b. Letter from the Community Counseling Center, dated 7 May 2009, showing he was a patient at this center. He was diagnosed with major depression recurrent type and generalized anxiety disorder. He was taking Vistaril 25 milligrams, one or two tablets twice a day for anxiety, Trazodone 100 milligrams at bed time for sleep and at his last visit he was started on Wellbutrin XE 150 MG once a day. “Celexa” was discontinued.· He needed an adjustment of his medications as part of his treatment plan. c. Psychiatric Evaluation, from the Ferguson Medical Group Psychological Services, , dated 28 December 2016, which shows: (1) Diagnostic Impressions, Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Mild Generalized Anxiety Disorder. (2) Summary: * Based on IQ testing, the applicant’s general cognitive ability is within the average range of intellectual functioning. At the time of assessment, he did not present with any cognitive impairments or deficits * The “TFLS” is designated to provide information concerning an individual’s ability to function independently * The applicant did not present with any deficits in his ability to perform instrumental activities of daily living * He appeared to possess the ability to understand and remember instructions * He is able to apply adequate levels concentration and persistence to complete tasks and he did not present with significant impairments with his ability to interact socially and adapt to changes in his environment * He possesses the ability to manage his own financial decisions * He would benefit from continued mental health services for his anxiety and depression * Continued cognitive–behavioral techniques along with medication management are recommended to help him modify any maladaptive thoughts and develop more effective coping techniques. d. Documents showing he had had a court order, power of attorney, a death certificate, and other documents for a conservatorship for his estate, which appears to have ended. 12. He contends his narrative reason for separation should be changed to a more appropriate reason because he did not receive an appropriate diagnosis or treatment [while in the military]. a. He also contends item 16 of his DD Form 214 should be annotated “YES” to show he had a GED, prior to enlistment. It would be appropriate to correct his DD Form 214 to show he was a high school graduate or equivalent b. The available evidence shows at the time he enlisted he met medical retention standards; on his medical report he indicates, "I am in good health and am on no medications," and indicates "1976 -Nerves Stomach" [three years pre-service]. In regards to his mental health and wellness, neither the applicant nor his records provide specific details surrounding the circumstances that resulted in his being hospitalized. The medical condition(s) that existed at the time of his separation are commensurate to the narrative reason on his DD Form 214. 13. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his submissions, his 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 Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant's records. There were no records available for review in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS), the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) due to the age of the case. There were few records in the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). JLV search revealed that the applicant is not service connected for any conditions. 2. In the 28Aug1979 Entrance Exam, the applicant reported a history of hospitalization for a nervous stomach in 1976 (prior to enlistment). The DD 214 indicates he was discharged for failure to meet medical procurement standards 31Jan1980 after 29 days of active service. In accordance with AR 40-501 chapter 2, he did not meet medical procurement standards. At that time, IAW AR 40-501 chapter 3, he met medical retentions standards. No in-service treatment records were available for review. Three years later he appeared for a Quadrennial Exam recorded on Standard Form 88 on 06Jul1983. During this exam, he reported a previous suicide attempt, and that he had been previously discharged from the National Guard for a Nervous Stomach in January 1980. It was also noted he had a prolonged hospitalization (10 months) for depression in Oct 1982. He was being treated with Endep an antidepressant and Navene an antipsychotic. The examiner marked him not qualified for Quadrennial. At that time, per AR 40-501 chapter 3, the applicant did not meet retention standards because the lengthy psychiatric hospitalization with psychotic features would have significantly interfered with performance of duty. 3. In the reviewer’s opinion, the condition would not meet medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501, however, referral for medical discharge processing seems most appropriate. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, in consideration of the Administrative Notes (below the signature), the Board determined that there is sufficient evidence to grant partial relief. 2. The Board found that a preponderance of evidence does not support the applicant's request for a change of his narrative reason for separation from, “Discharge of Personnel Who Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards,” to a more appropriate reason. The Board disagrees with the Medical Review that the case should be referred for medical discharge processing. The Board found that the preponderance of the evidence supports that the applicant had a preexisting medical condition. Per the Medical Review, the applicant reported a history of hospitalization for a nervous stomach in 1976, which was prior to enlistment. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :XX :XX :XX GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Administrative Notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the signature), the Board determined the overall merits of this case are sufficient to grant partial relief. 1. The Board recommends granting the correction noted in Administrative Notes. 2. The Board recommends denial of the request for a change in narrative reason. 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): 1. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, stated item 16 of the DD Form 214 would state whether the service member was a high school graduate or equivalent. The applicant obtained his GED on 18 June 1979, prior to entering the military. 2. The entry “NO” on his DD Form 214 in item 16 should be deleted and “YES” should be added. 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 635-200, 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. Soldiers separated in an entry-level status, generally 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 duty. 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 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes policies and procedures for completion of the DD Form 214. It states, based on the specific separation authority, the source of the SPD code and narrative reason for separation was AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes). 4. AR 635-5-1, in effect at the time, provided 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. Identified the SPD code of "JFT" as being associated with separations under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5-7c(2), currently chapter 5-11, states the narrative reason for separation was “Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards.” 5. 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. 6. 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// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180008754 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTIONS OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1