IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 September 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210008808 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 1 March 1991, to show: * the type of separation as “Release from Active Duty” rather than “Release from Active Duty Training” * a more favorable Reentry (RE) code than "3," which indicates she is not qualified for continued Army service APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) with self-authored statement, dated 23 October 2020 * DD Form 214, for the period ending 1 March 1991 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter, dated 23 October 2020 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 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, in effect, Item 23 (Type of Separation) of her DD Form 214 for the period ending 1 March 1991 erroneously shows "Release from Active Duty Training," despite the fact she was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, not training. She was found medically unfit for deployment but remained on active duty for support at Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), San Antonio, Texas. As a result of this error on her DD Form 214, she cannot qualify for VA medical benefits. She was unaware of the error on her DD Form 214 until the VA brought it to her attention in January 2020. 3. The applicant states she was initially accepted as a VA medical patient in August 2019; however, they discovered months later that her DD Form 214 indicated her type of separation was Released from Active Duty Training. She was advised that Reservists can receive VA medical benefits if they were called to active duty during a war or if they sustained a disability that was service-connected. They explained that since her type of separation is shown as Released from Active Duty Training, she was deemed ineligible and her medical care was terminated. 4. The applicant adds, her unit was mobilized and deployed in support of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. She arrived at the mobilization station with x-rays and medical records as she had sustained a Workers Compensation injury to her back, which aggravated a previous back injury she sustained while attending Basic Training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. That injury caused her to be recycled and assigned to the Fitness Company for rehabilitation. 5. The applicant states she was seen by a doctor at BAMC and deemed unfit for deployment. As a result, she did not deploy with her unit but in the haste of deployment, she was not discharged either. She stayed behind in an active duty status and helped out at BAMC. Three months later, someone finally realized she was still a Reservist on active duty and processed her out. She contends she was discharged from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) prior to her statutory obligation date; however, she did serve the period for which she was called to active duty and respectfully requests that her reason for separation be changed to "Release from Active Duty." 6. The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 26 September 1885. She entered active duty for training (ADT) on 20 February 1986, for the purpose of completing her initial entry training. She completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 92B (Medical Laboratory Specialist). She was released from ADT on 12 September 1986, and credited with six months and 23 days of honorable service during this period. 7. Permanent Orders 3-1, issued by Headquarters, Fifth United States Army and Fort Sam Houston, Texas on 5 January 1991, show the 94th Medical Hospital and its members were ordered to active duty in support of Operation Desert Shield with a home station reporting date of 8 January 1991 and mobilization station reporting date of 11 January 1991, at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. 8. Orders 2-2, issued by Headquarters, 807th Medical Brigade, Seagoville, Texas on 5 January 1991, show Detachment 1, 94th General Hospital, San Antonio, Texas and its members were ordered to active duty for a period of 180 days, with a home station reporting date of 8 January 1991 and a mobilization station reporting date of 11 January 1991, at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The authority for this action was Permanent Orders 3-1, issued by Headquarters, Fifth United States Army and Fort Sam Houston, Texas on 5 January 1991. 9. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) shows the applicant’s Detachment Commander requested that she be reassigned from the 94th General Hospital to the non-deployable excess pool at Fort Sam Houston on 14 January 1991. The catalyst for this action was the determination that she was non-deployable. This form indicates there was an attachment with the specific reasons for her non-deployability but it is not filed in her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 10. A DA Form 4187 shows the Mobilization Personnel Detachment Commander initiated action to separate the applicant from service in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11, by reason of her failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards on 23 January 1991. 11. The Commander, Headquarters Command, United States Army Garrison, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, recommended orders be issued returning the applicant to the USAR due to pre-existing medical conditions with a profile period of over 31 days. He cited the authority for this action as United States Forces Command (FORSCOM) Message, 22200ZOCT91, Subject: Management of Non-deployables. 12. Commander, Headquarters Command, United States Army Garrison, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, endorsement, dated 28 February 1991, directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and message dated 231800Z, Subject: Clarifying procedures for Release from Active Duty (REFRAD)/Discharge of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS)/USAR and retired Soldiers ordered to AD (Active Duty) in support of Desert Storm. Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-3, and Separation Program Designator (SPD) code "JFF" were to be cited as the authority and reason for discharge. Appropriate notations were to be made on her DD Form 214 in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents). It was further recommended that the applicant be returned to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and be separated for her medical condition. 13. Orders 43-19, issued by Headquarters, Fifth United States Army and Fort Sam Houston, Texas on 26 February 1991, show the applicant was released from active duty, not by reason of physical disability and assigned to the USAR (Standby) (Active List), effective 1 March 1991. This order was rendered in accordance with Format 523. 14. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows she was released from active duty on 1 March 1991 and credited with completing one month and 21 days of net active service this period. Her DD Form 214 contains the following entries in: * item 23 (Type of Separation) – Release from Active Duty for Training * item 24 (Character of Service) – Uncharacterized * item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3 * item 26 (Separation Code) – JFF * item 27 (Reentry Code) – RE-3 * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Directed by the Secretary of the Army 15. Orders D-09-380755, issued by the USAR Personnel Center (ARPERCEN), St. Louis, Missouri on 28 September 1993, show the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR Ready Reserve on 28 September 1993. 16. Soldiers are considered to be in an entry-level status when they are within their first 180 days of active duty service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was in an entry-level status at the time of her separation processing. As a result, her service was appropriately described as "uncharacterized" in accordance with governing regulations. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicants statement, supporting documents, evidence in the records and regulatory guidance. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, her record of service and documents provided by the applicant. The Board determined based upon the documentary evidence presented by the applicant and found within the military service record, the Board found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a correction of the applicant’s record. The Board determined governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. The Board found the RE Code issued at the time of separation is warranted based on the applicant’s discharge. Therefor the Board denied relief. 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. At the time, Army Regulation 635-5 provided the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. This regulation prescribed: a. The applicable types of separation determined which orders formats would be rendered and which type of separation would be entered in item 23 of the DD Form 214. This regulation showed, in part, orders formats 523, 526 and 620 were appropriate for enlisted personnel being Released from Active Duty. Orders formats 261, 267 and 274 were appropriate for enlisted personnel being Released from Active Duty Training. b. Separation code "JFF" was the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-3 of, based on Secretarial Authority. Additionally, the SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table established either RE code "2" or "3" could be assigned to Soldiers separated under this authority and for this reason. RE code "2" was less restrictive for reentry the RE code "3." 3. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5–3 (Secretarial Authority) of the version of this regulation in effect at the time provides that separation for the convenience of the Government under this paragraph was the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the best interest of the Army. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210008808 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210008808 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210008808 1