IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 October 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210017173 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision. Specifically, he requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 4 April 1985, to show he was medically discharged with separation pay and benefits, and a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), with a self-authored statement * Service Records [Previously Considered] * Army Review Boards Agency, request for a signed application FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20170010882 on 9 October 2020. Wherein, the Board determined the applicant’s characterization of service was neither in error or unjust and denied his request for relief. 2. As a new argument, the applicant states he told his recruiter L_ Q_ that he had rhematic fever as a child but was told to check "no" on his entrance form. He believes medical problems arising during the first 180 days of active service can lead to administrative discharge for Entry Level Performance and Conduct, with simplified administrative procedures and no requirement of a medical evaluation board. And that, such discharges are based on command determinations that members are not qualified for further military service by reason of unsatisfactory performance or conduct. In theory this is used for conditions not serious enough to warrant medical discharge for a condition incurred in the line of duty. He feels, since he had no problem passing the military entrance processing station (MEPS) physical and basic training (BT), his condition was incurred in the line of duty. 3. The applicant's service record shows: a. In preparation for enlistment in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), the applicant underwent an initial entry examination on 15 December 1984, during which he noted he previously had a cyst on his left hand and sprained his right knee. He did not disclose previously having rhematic fever or a heart murmur at that time. The examining physician noted a surgical scar on his left wrist and ordered an orthopedic consultation for his previous right knee football injury. He was found qualified for enlistment at that time. b. The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 18 December 1984, for an 8-year service commitment. His DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document) shows L_ Q_ was the MEPS Officer who administered the applicant the oath of enlistment, not his recruiter. c. On 5 March 1985, he was ordered to active duty for training. On 11 March 1985, the applicant reported to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, for completion of his initial entry training. On 21 March 1985, the applicant was examined at the Internal Medicine Clinic to rule out a heart murmur [cardiomyopathy]. d. On 23 March 1985, a DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), was initiated at the Fort Leonard Wood medical treatment facility. This form shows: (1) His chief complaint was heart murmur, but he was never told if it was related to the rheumatic fever or not. He had since received penicillin monthly and was followed with echocardiograms and treadmills. He had been able to regularly participate in sports, was active in football in high school, and currently asymptomatic. (2) The examiner diagnosed him with aortic insufficiency and aortic stenosis secondary to bicuspid aortic valve. He also noted a cardiologist was consulted and examined the applicant. (3) The examiner recommended he be separated from the Army for failure to meet medical procurement standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness – Medical Services), Chapter 2. He indicated the applicant was unfit for military service because of valvular lesion. The applicant had been suspended from training and issued a permanent P3 profile indicating no mandatory strenuous physical activity. e. On 25 March 1985, the medical approving authority approved the EPSBD findings, and the recommendation was forwarded further action. f. On 28 March 1985, the applicant was informed and concurred with the medical findings of the EPSBD. He acknowledged his understanding that legal advice was available to him. He also understood that he may request to be discharged without delay, or to request retention on active duty. If retained, he could be involuntarily reclassified into another military occupational specialty based on his medical condition. He concurred with the proceedings and requested to be discharged without delay. g. On 28 March 1985, the applicant’s commander recommended approval of the discharge recommendation. h. On 2 April 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation. i. On 4 April 1985, the applicant was separated with an uncharacterized discharged. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards - no disability. He was credited with completing 24 days of net active service and was not awarded a military occupational specialty. 4. Soldiers are considered 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 his separation processing. As a result, his service was appropriately described as "uncharacterized" in accordance with governing regulations. 5. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It simply means the Soldier was not in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 6. The ABCMR considered the applicant's request for a discharge upgrade on 9 October 2020. In the processing of that case the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor provided an advisory opinion that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. The applicant was not separated for a disability incurred during his service. Subsequently, the board denied his request. 7. The applicant provides the previously considered medical documents and a new self-authored statement as summarized above. 8. Published guidance to Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 9. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents, the Record of Proceedings (ROP) and the applicant's records in the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). There were no records in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS), the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), or in the Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS), likely due to the age of the case. The applicant requests medical disability. This is a request for reconsideration of ABCMR decision with Board date 09Oct2020. Since his previous application, the applicant has added a personal letter dated 16Nov2021. Much of the same information was included in the previous personal statement. No new medical evidence was submitted. The records were reviewed to include the previous medical analysis, and the ARBA Medical Reviewer concurs with the previous review. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the determined that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance. The Board reviewed and concurred with the Medical Advisory Opinion. The Board noted that the applicant’s request is for reconsideration of a case previously filed. However, after reviewing evidence of record and with exception to the applicnat’s personal letter, no new evidence was presented for consideration of the current request. Based on the preponderance of the documentation available for review, the Board determined the evidence presented insufficient to warrant a recommendation of 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2017001 on 9 October 2020. 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. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR has the discretion to hold a hearing; applicants do not have a right to appear personally before the Board. The Director or the ABCMR may grant formal hearings whenever justice requires. 2. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness – Medical Services) provides the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service. a. Chapter 3, Disposition of Soldiers who may be unfit because of physical disability. Paragraph 2-10b, states the causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction states the heart are all organic valvular diseases of the heart, including those improved by surgical procedures. b. Paragraph 3-4e, states Soldiers on active duty who meet retention medical fitness standards but who failed to meet procurement medical fitness standards on initial entry into the service (erroneous appointment, enlistment, or induction) may be processed for separation as provided in Army Regulation 635-200. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time provided that: a. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. A separation would be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier had less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time separation action was initiated, except when: (1) a discharge under other than honorable conditions was authorized, due to 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. (3) the Soldier has less than 181 days of continuous active military service, has completed Initial Entry Training, has been awarded an MOS, and has reported for duty at a follow-on unit of assignment. 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. 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). d. 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. An uncharacterized discharge is neither favorable nor unfavorable; in the case of Soldiers issued this characterization of service, an insufficient amount of time would have passed to evaluate the Soldier's conduct and performance. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210017173 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1