IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 August 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220003758 APPLICANT REQUESTS: •correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from ActiveDuty) to show the character of service as honorable and to show the narrativereason 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 •Army National Guard (ARNG) discharge orders •ARNG Retirement Point History Statement FACTS: 1.The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, UnitedStates Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of MilitaryRecords (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is inthe interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2.The applicant states he was injured during basic training and he was not able tofinish training. His knee pops and is weak to this day. 3.The applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 21 January 1999. 4.Orders issued on 2 February 1999 ordered the applicant to initial active duty fortraining (IADT) with a reporting date of 16 March 1999. 5.The applicant's complete separation proceedings are not available. His DD Form 214shows he was discharged from the Reserve of the Army and transferred to his StateARNG on 25 May 1999, under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200 (PersonnelSeparations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meetprocurement medical fitness standards. The DD Form 214 also shows the character of his service as uncharacterized. 6.The applicant's National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record ofService) shows he was discharged from the ARNG on 25 May 1999 by reason of"medically unfit at time appointment" with an uncharacterized character of service. 7.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 applicant’s previous ABCMR denial, 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 an upgrade of his 25 May1999 uncharacterized discharge and, in essence, a referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and. He states: “I was injured during my time at basic training. I was not able to finish my training. Till this day my knee pops and is weak.” b. The Record of Proceedings outlines the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The applicant’s DD 214 shows the former ARNG Soldier entered active duty for basic combat training on 15 March 1999 and was discharged on 25 May 1999 under provisions provided in paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200, Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations (26 June 1996): Separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards. c. His Report of Separation and Record of Service (NGB Form 22) shows the applicant entered the ARNG on 21 January 1999 and was discharged from the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 25 May 1999 under provisions provided in paragraph 8-26b(3) of NGR 600-200, Enlisted Personnel Management (1 March 1997): Failure to meet medical procurement standards of AR 40-501, chapter 2 prior to entry on IADT including positive urinalysis and HIV in entrance physicals. d. No medical documents was submitted with the application and there were no encounters in AHLTA or JLV. e.Given the narrative on his DD 214 and NGB 22, the applicant was referred to anentry physical standards boards (EPTSB) IAW paragraph 5-11a of AR 635-40. These boards are convened IAW paragraph 7-12 of AR 40-400, Patient Administration. The 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. f.The EPSBD results are not with the supporting documentation or in iPERMS.Given his discharge under paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200, it is safe to assume their finding was that his condition had existed prior to service, failed enlistment standards, and was not compatible with continued military service. g.There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs whichis applied in any review of governmental action. It holds that any action taken by the government is legal until evidence is provided that shows that it is not legal. Unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, the governmental action is presumed to have been administered correctly. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged from the Army. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity. h.An uncharacterized discharge is given to individuals who separate prior tocompleting 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. i.Based on the information currently available, it is the opinion of the Agency MedicalAdvisor that neither an upgrade of her discharge nor a referral of his case to the Disability Evaluation System is warranted. If the applicant submits documentation, specifically medical documents that identify his medical condition and the administrative documentation relevant to the circumstances surrounding his discharge, an Agency Medical Advisor will certainly reevaluate his request. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1.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 equitabledecision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve theinterest of equity and justice in this case. 2.The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents,evidence in the records, and regulatory guidance. The Board considered the applicant'sstatement, the medical records, and the review and conclusions of the medicalreviewing official. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Board concurredwith the medical reviewer’s finding of insufficient evidence the contested medicalconditions failed to meet retention standards during his period of service. Therefore, theBoard determined referral to DES for consideration is not warranted. 3.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 aSoldier is in entry-level status. As such, his DD Form 214 properly shows his service asuncharacterized. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflectionof a Soldier’s military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Armylong enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 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. Microsoft Office Signature Line... 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 forcorrection of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the allegederror or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant'sfailure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines itwould 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 withuncharacterized 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 authorizedunder 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. 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 Entrance Physical Standards Board. 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 or during IADT for ARNG 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 (Standards of Medical Fitness), 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 ARNG Soldiers, entry-level status begins upon enlistment in the ARNG. It terminates: (1) For Soldiers ordered to IADT for one continuous period, 180 days after beginning training. (2) For Soldiers ordered to IADT for the split option, 90 days after beginning advance individual training. 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//