ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 10 February 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190010775 APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 16 March 1989, to show she received a medical discharge and to show her character of service as honorable instead of uncharacterized. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record). 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 (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 states she was told she would receive an honorable medical discharge when she left basic combat training. She claims she was lied to and states her physical disability should not be held against her. She further states she had a back injury and x-rays showed some inadequacies. 3. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve, Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 21 July 1988. In connection with her enlistment, the following forms were completed or certified by a medical officer, on 21 July 1988: * Applicant Medical Prescreening Form - stating she wore glasses * Report of Medical History - stating, she had stitches as a child, she broke her left ankle in 1983 – no surgery required, she had a heart murmur as a child, and she wore glasses * Report of Medical Examination – stating she had spina bifida occulta and she required glasses, but was acceptable and qualified for service in the Regular Army 4. On 19 December 1988, while still in the DEP, she was treated at the Lankenau emergency room, where her chief complaint was a back injury. She reported that she pulled her back on 16 December 1988, while lifting a heavy laundry basket and a wet blanket. She complained of pain in the lower thoracic/upper lumbar back area, and left scapular pain, which was non-tender to palpitation. Her diagnosis was listed as a strain. 5. Her record contains a Medical Record – Consultation Sheet, prepared at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), on 2 February 1989, wherein the medical officer requested an evaluation of her back strain. The notes from the medical officer state the applicant received treatment for the injury, she convalesced, she had a complete resolution in one week, and she was able to return to her regular job in two weeks. Upon examination there were no lumbar spasms. The Radiologic Consultation Request/Report resulting from the consultation request, note spina bifida occulta in the S-1 region of her back. 6. On 3 February 1989, she was discharged from the Delayed Entry Program and enlisted in the Regular Army. 7. On 18 February 1989, while in basic combat training, the applicant reported to the Troop Medical Clinic (TMC) with complaints of back pain with a duration of two days. The TMC notes the applicant refused the self-care protocol and also noted her condition of spina bifida occulta. 8. The TMC completed a Medical Record – Consultation Sheet, dated 22 February 1989 requesting an orthopedic referral, and noting: she had an existed prior to service (EPTS) condition; her lumbar spine had been tender for one week; the applicant had been noncompliant with medication; and that MEPS identified her condition of spina bifida occulta. 9. The consult with Orthopedic services occurred on 3 March 1989. The Consultation report states the applicant had a mild lumbar sprain, which was an EPTS condition, and recommended an Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) board for the EPTS. She was issued a physical profile that same day. Her profile, a temporary level three (T-3) for the upper body lists her medical conditions as “Lumbar sprain ETPS.” The expiration date of the profile was listed as, “Pending AR 635-200 board.” 10. On 13 March 1989, her commander recommended her discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11 (Separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards). 11. The applicant was discharged on 16 March 1989, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, for not meeting procurement medical fitness standards. She completed 1 month and 14 days of net active service and she received an uncharacterized characterization of service. 12. Paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200, provided 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, active duty for training, or initial entry training would be separated. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition did not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). The character of service for Soldiers separated under this provision would normally be honorable, but would be uncharacterized if the Soldier was in an entry-level status. Entry-level status is defined as the first 180 days of continuous active service for Regular Army Soldiers. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, her record and length of service, the medical documentation before and during service, the condition identified as EPTS, the reason for her separation and her entry-level status at the time of discharge. The Board did not find evidence of injury in-service that was not resultant from her EPTS condition or that her condition required processing for disability separation. The Board found that her condition failed to meet medical procurement standards. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received and the reason for her separation was not in error or unjust. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was not warranted. 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. 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 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 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, and separation. Chapter 2 provides for the physical standards for enlistment or induction. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, sets policies, standards, and procedures to insure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. a. Paragraph 3-9 provided that a separation would be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if processing was initiated while a Soldier was in an entry-level status, except when: (1) an under other than honorable conditions characterization was authorized by the reason for separation and was warranted by the circumstances of the case; or (2) the Secretary of the Army, on a case by case basis, determined a characterization of service as honorable was clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. This characterization was authorized when the Soldier was separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, for convenience of the government, and under Secretarial plenary authority. b. Entry-level status is defined as the first 180 days of continuous active service for Regular Army Soldiers. c. Paragraph 5-11 provided 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, active duty for training, or initial entry training would be separated. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition did not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501. The character of service for Soldiers separated under this provision would normally be honorable, but would be uncharacterized if the Soldier was in an entry- level status. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Personnel Separations – Separation Program Designators (SPD)), in effect at the time, prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the SPD to be used for these stated reasons. It shows separation by paragraph 5-11 of Army Regulation 635-200 the reason of separation to be "did not meet procurement medial fitness standards, no disability" and the SPD code of "JFT." NOTHING FOLLOWS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190010775 4 1