IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 March 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180014977 APPLICANT REQUESTS: his record shows: * a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to reflect a medical discharge his alias/name change of * the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Hand-written statement/document * DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report), dated 14 September 2004 * 12 pages of medical documents * Certificate of Live Birth, State of, * Copies of his Social Security Card, Driver License, Medicare Health Insurance Card, Prescription Card, Disabled Persons Identification Card and U.S. Passport * A Global War on Terrorism Service Medal certificate with photo of medal FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year period provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the ABCMR 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 filed a separate ABCMR application, Docket Number AR20190011151, regarding the requested relief of showing his alias/name change and his award. Therefore, these contentions will be addressed in that record of proceedings and will not be further discussed in this case. 3. The applicant states, in effect, that because of chest pains and multiple readings of hypertension and medication prescribed at Tripler Army Hospital, Hawaii, he was medically discharged from Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Hawaii Army National Guard (HIARNG) on 24 April 1998 for a period of 8 years. 5. Orders 149-287 issued by the Office of The Adjutant General, State of Hawaii, on 6 August 2004 shows he was ordered to active duty as a member of his unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom effective 16 August 2004 with a report date of 19 August 2004 to the mobilization station – Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, for a period not to exceed 545 days. Subsequently, these orders were amended by Orders 182-038, dated 17 September 2004 showing his period of active duty not to exceed 30 days. 6. Orders C257-21 issued by U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, on 13 September 2004 reads, "You are released from active duty, not by reason of physical disability, and assigned as indicated on the date immediately following release from active duty." He was released back to his unit effective 14 September 2004. 7. DD Form 220, dated 14 September 2004 shows: a. he reported to active duty effective 16 August 2004; b. he departed active duty to home effective 14 September 2004; c. his length of tour as 30 days; d. he underwent a complete medical examination for chest pain from 27 August 2004 to 10 September 2004 at Tripler Army Medical Center; and e. he indicated with a "X" in the block "do not believe that I am now medically qualified to perform satisfactory military service" and authenticated the document with his signature on 14 September 2004. 8. NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows the applicant was honorably discharged from the HIARNG by reason of expiration term of service (ETS) effective 23 April 2005. He completed 7 years of net active service. Subsequently, Orders D-04-610554, dated 25 April 2006 honorably discharged him from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) effective 25 April 2006. 9. The applicant provides 12 pages of medical documents showing he was evaluated at Tripler Army Medical Center, during the timeframe of 26 August 2004 through 10 September 2004, for a possible October 2004 deployment. He was treated for chest pains and diagnosed with hypertension and prescribed medications. Medical documents show his deployability as being deferred due to his uncontrollable hypertension and that he be referred to his State Surgeon for a possible medical evaluation board. 11. A review of the applicant's record contains no documentation, nor does he provide any, that shows his medical condition did not meet medical retention standards prior to his release from military service. 12. A review of the applicant's record contains no DD Form 214 that was issued during his period of mobilization. However, a DD Form 220 does show his active duty during this period. 13. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s medical records in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and made the following findings and recommendations: The applicant was mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 16 August 2004. However, upon review of the applicant’s AHLTA record, due to episodes of recurrent chest pain and uncontrolled hypertension, he was released from Active Duty (REFRAD) on 14 September 2004 with the recommendation to undergo a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) through his state National Guard Surgeon’s office. An MEB was not initiated upon the applicant’s REFRAD as was recommended. The applicant has subsequently been diagnosed with congestive heart failure, end stage renal disease requiring dialysis, and insulin-requiring Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. These conditions have been addressed and managed through the VA according to the applicant’s JLV record, however there is no documentation identified that states that any of the applicant’s conditions are service connected or any rating percentage was awarded to the applicant. The record supports that these conditions were at least in part present at the time the MEB was recommended in 2004. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that the applicant’s record be referred back to his state’s Army National Guard State Surgeon’s office for consideration of referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and military medical retirement. 14. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), dated 15 September 2000 states a DD Form 214 will not be prepared when a Soldier if found disqualified on report for active duty and who did not enter actively upon duties per orders. It further states that a mobilized Soldier who reports to a mobilization station and is found unqualified for active duty will only receive a DD Form 220, a Report of Active Duty, which is generally issued for shorter periods of active duty (other than annual training). BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service to include a period of active duty, identified medical issues, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the statement by the medical official at Tripler Medical Center regarding an MEB and the review and conclusions of the ARBA medical advising official. The Board found that two of the applicant’s requested corrections will be addressed by a separate application to the ABCMR. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the applicant should be afforded consideration for a medical evaluation board by his ARNG state surgeon. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that partial relief 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: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by providing the applicant’s record to his state’s Army National Guard State Surgeon’s office for consideration of referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and military medical separation or retirement. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to relief in excess to that described above. 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, United States 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 ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3 year statute of limitations if the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) enlisted Soldiers. 3. Title 10, USC, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by a Military Occupational Specialty Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 4. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), in effect at the time, governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, separation, and retirement. a. Chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement) provides guidance on the various medical conditions and physical defects that may render a Soldier unfit for further military service, and that fall below the standards required for service. These medical conditions and physical defects, individually or in combination, are those that: significantly limit or interfere with the Soldier's performance of their duties; may compromise or aggravate the Soldier's health or well-being if the Soldier were to remain in the military service; may compromise the health or well-being of other Soldiers; or may prejudice the best interests of the government if the individual Soldier were to remain in the military service. b. Chapter 10 (ARNG) provides guidance on the basic policies, standards, and procedures for medical examinations and physical standards for ARNG and Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) Soldiers. 5. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. If a soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this regulation provides for disposition of the soldier according to applicable laws and regulations. 6. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), dated 15 September 2000 states a DD Form 214 will not be prepared when a Soldier if found disqualified on report for active duty and who did not enter actively upon duties per orders. It further states that a mobilized Soldier who reports to a mobilization station and is found unqualified for active duty will only receive a DD Form 220. /NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180014977 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1