IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 June 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210016025 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the character of service as honorable and to show the narrative reason for separation as "medical" * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 * DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings) * Optional Form 275 (Medical Record Report) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, 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: a. He was told that because he had swelling of his feet, he would be receiving a medical discharge with an honorable character of service, however, he was given an uncharacterized discharge. He never looked at his DD Form 214 until he went to apply for a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loan and state tags. b. He believes that he was characterized as a "medical" from day one. On the day he went to the medical unit and was limping because of his swollen feet, he believed that it was because he had to wear boots that had no support. He spent four years in the Navy JROTC and never had issues with his feet. He would like this corrected so that he can obtain a VA loan and other benefits that he should be entitled to. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 July 1993. 4. On 6 August 1993, an EPSBD found the applicant medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 2, due to bilateral pes planus, existed prior to service, not service aggravated. The examining physician stated that although the applicant met retention criteria, it was felt to be in the best interest of the applicant and the U.S. Government to separate him from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11 (separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards). 5. On 18 August 1993, the applicant was informed of the medical findings. He acknowledged he understood that legal advice of an attorney employed by the Army was available to him or that he could consult civilian counsel at his own expense. He also acknowledged he understood that he could 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 upon his medical condition. He concurred with the proceedings and requested to be discharged from the U.S. Army without delay. 6. On 19 August 1993, the applicant's unit executive officer recommended his separation from the Army. On 20 August 1993, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed his discharge from the Army. 7. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 27 August 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of "did not meet procurement medical fitness standards – no disability." The DD Form 214 also shows he completed 29 days of active service and a character of service of uncharacterized. 8. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and/or the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting a discharge upgrade, and in essence, a referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES). He states: (1) “I was told that since I had swelling of my feet that I would be receiving a Medical Discharge/ Honorable Discharge, but it was filled out as Uncharacterized. I never My first sergeant and the company’s doctor both told me that it would be a medical discharge and seen as Honorable.” (2) I did believe that I was characterized as a Medical from day one. On the day that I went to the medical unit and was limping from my swollen feet. I believed that it was because we had to wear the boots that had no support. I spent 4 years in NJROTC and never had any issues with my feet. As of now I'm waiting to see if this can be corrected so that I can look into a VA loan and other benefits that I should be entitled too. Thank you.” b. The Record of Proceedings outlines the circumstances of the case. His DD 214 shows he entered the regular Army on 29 July 1993 and received an uncharacterized discharge on 27 August 1993 under authority provided by paragraph 5-11 of AR 635- 200, Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel (17 September 1990): Separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards. c. Paragraph 5-11a of AR 635-200 reads in part: “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 entry on AD {active duty} or ADT {active duty for training} for initial entry training, may be separated. Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of AD. Such findings will result in an entrance physical standards board.” d. The applicant was referred to an entrance physical standards boards (EPSBD) IAW paragraph 5-11a of AR 635-40 for his pes planus (aka flat feet). These boards are convened IAW paragraph 7-12 of AR 40-400, Patient Administration. This process is for enlisted Soldiers who within their first 6 months of active service are found to have a preexisting condition which does not meet the enlistment standard in chapter 2 of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness, but does meet the chapter 3 retention standard of the same regulation. The fourth criterion for this process is that the preexisting condition was not permanently service aggravated. e. From the narrative for his EPSBD dated 10 August 1993: HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: This 18-year-old male complains of a long history of bilateral foot pain related flat feet. He denies playing any sports in high school; however, he had a history of long-standing or prolonged discomfort when especially when wearing boots. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: … Bilateral foot examination reveals significant eversion of the foot with marked bulging of the medial border due to inward rotation of the astragalus. f. Paragraph 2-10b(6) of AR 50-501, Standards of Medical Fitness (15 May 1989), shows the pes planus fails procurement standards in “ pronounced cases, with decided eversion of the foot and marked bulging of the inner border, due to inward rotation of the astragalus, regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms.” g. On 18 August 1993, the EPSBD determined the applicant had a condition which had existed prior to service, had not been permanently aggravated by his brief service, and failed medical procurement standards. That same day, the applicant concurred with the board’s findings in selecting the option of “I concur with these proceedings and request to be discharged from the US Army without delay.” h. No additional medical documentation was submitted with the application. There are no electronic records in either AHLTA or JLV. i. An uncharacterized discharge is given to individuals who separate prior to completing 180 days of military service, or when the discharge action was initiated prior to 180 days of service. This type of discharge does not attempt to characterize service as good or bad. Through no fault of his own, he simply had a medical condition which was, unfortunately, not within enlistment standards. j. In the absence of error or injustice, it is the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that neither a discharge upgrade nor a referral to the DES is warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. The 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. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical review the Board concurred with the advising official finding that neither a discharge upgrade nor a referral to the DES is warranted. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 2. The Board determined DES compensates an individual only for service incurred condition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service. The DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions which were incurred or permanently aggravated during their military service; or which did not cause or contribute to the termination of their military career. 3. An uncharacterized discharge is not derogatory; it is recorded when a Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to initiation of separation. It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 4. The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 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, 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 ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation in effect at the time states in: a. Paragraph 3-9, 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 is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case; (2) Headquarters, Department of the Army, on a case by case basis, determined a characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. This characterization is authorized when the Soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, for convenience of the government, and under Secretarial plenary authority; or b. Paragraph 5-11, 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 entry on active duty or active-duty training for initial entry training, may be separated. Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of active duty. Such findings will result in an EPSBD. This board must be convened within the Soldier’s first 6 months of active duty. Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by an appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the Soldier’s initial entrance on active duty for Regular Army Soldiers that: (1) Would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service or entry on active duty or active duty training for initial entry training had it been detected at that time. (2) Does not disqualify the Soldier for retention in the military service per Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. (3) A Soldier being separated under this provision will be awarded a character of service of uncharacterized if in an entry-level status. c. Section II (Terms), for Regular Army Soldiers, entry-level status is the first 180 days of continuous active duty. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant’s request for the correction of a military record. Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 4. Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by ARBA be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to ABCMR applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210016025 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1