IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 4 October 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230005539


APPLICANT REQUESTS: 

*	correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show 
he was medically discharged vice being discharged for failing medical 
procurement standards
*	to appear in person before the board

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of the Discharge from the Active Duty)
*	VA Form 21-526EZ (Application for Disability Compensation for Related 
Compensation Benefits)
*	VA Form 21-4139 (Statement in Support of Claim)
*	DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
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, in effect, that his discharge should have been processed as a 
medical discharge, and his leadership at the time did not process his separation as a 
medical discharge.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 1979. He was assigned to 
Fort Bliss, TX, for basic training on 13 March 1979. Upon completing basic training, he 
was assigned to Fort Jackson, SC, for Advanced Individual Training on 15 May 1979.

4.  On 3 April 1979, the medical examiner identified that the applicant had a childhood 
disease that was annotated on the Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History).  

5.  On 24 July 1979, the DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standard Board (EPSBD) 
Proceedings) shows the applicant denied any history of asthma before entering active 
duty.  In addition, the medical examiner stated that the applicant's enlistment physical 
did not indicate any findings, symptoms, severity, and physical abnormalities other than 
what had been stated on SF Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) and SF Form 93.  
The medical examiner, in effect, states that laboratory results diagnose that the 
applicant has Small and large Airway disease.

6.  On 21 August 1979, the applicant was provided notification that under the provisions 
of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 5-7, he did not meet procurement medical 
fitness standards and, in effect would be discharged from the military. He was informed 
that he would be ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver was granted.

7.  The applicant concurred with proceedings and requested to be discharged from the 
Army without delay. His commander recommended approval. 

8.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and Discharge Order 
shows the applicant was honorably discharged on 21 August 1979 in accordance with 
chapter 5-7 (failing to meet medical procurement standards) of AR 635-200, Separation 
Code JFT and Reentry Code 3. He completed 5 months and 13 days of active service. 

9.  The applicant provided argument or evidence the Board should consider, along with 
the applicant's overall record, in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or 
clemency determination guidance.

10.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  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:  
    b.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting, in essence, a referral to the 
disability evaluation system.  
    c.  The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the 
circumstances of the case.  His DD 214 for the period of Service under consideration 
shows he entered the Regular Army on 6 March 1979 and was honorably discharged on 
21 August 1979 under authority provided by paragraph 5-7 of AR 635-200, Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel (1 March 1978): Separation of personnel who did not 
meet procurement medical fitness standards. 
    d.  The applicant’s pre-entrance Report of Medical History and Report of Medical 
Examination show the applicant to have been in good health, without any significant 
medical history or conditions.   
    e.  The applicant was referred to an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) for 
chest pain and shortness of breath IAW paragraph 5-7 of AR 635-200.  EPSBDs are 
convened IAW 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 
aggravated by their military service.  
    f.  From the 24 July 1979 Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings 
(DA Form 4707):
“History of Condition Existing Prior to Service: Patient is an 18-year-old black 
male who was seen in the Internal Medicine Clinic on 19 JUL 79, for evaluation 
of chest pain and shortness of breath on exertion.  He denied any history of 
asthma before active duty ... Smokes more than 1 pack of cigarettes per day.
Objective Findings: There were scattered rhonchi and wheezing on physical 
examination.
Laboatory and X-Ray Results: Pulmonary Function Test shows  evidence of 
small and large airway disease, with some response to bronchodilators.
Diagnosis: Small and large airway disease. EPTS [existed prior to service] (NOT 
PR)
Medically unfit for enlistment IAW Par 2-26c, AR 40-501.”
    g.  Paragraph 2-26c of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness (27 May 1976) 
states “Bronchitis, chronic with evidence of pulmonary function disturbance” is a cause 
for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction.
    h.  The board determined his medical condition had existed prior to service, had not 
been permanently aggravated by his military service, did not meet one or more medical 
enlistment/induction standards, and was not compatible with continued military service.  
The applicant agreed with the board’s findings on 10 August 1979, marking and 
initialing the election “I concur with these proceedings and request to be discharged 
from the US Army without delay.”
    i.  Review of his records in JLV shows he has received care at Veterans Hospital 
Administration facilities as a non-service-connected Veteran and has no service-
connected disabilities.  
    j.  The DES only compensates an individual for service incurred medical condition(s) 
which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service.  
    k.  It is the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that a referral of his case to the 
Disability Evaluation System is unwarranted. 


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. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the 
medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding a referral of his 
case to the Disability Evaluation System is unwarranted. The Board noted, the opine 
found the applicant’s medical condition had existed prior to service, had not been 
permanently aggravated by his military service, did not meet one or more medical 
enlistment/induction standards, and was not compatible with continued military service. 
Based on the preponderance of evidence, the Board recognized the applicant’s request 
for referral to the DES for a medical health condition, however it is without merit and the 
Board denied relief 

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. These roles and 
authorities are granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs and executed 
under a different set of laws.

3.  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, U.S. 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 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for 
separation of enlisted personnel. 

	a.  Paragraph 5-7, in effect at the time, states that Soldiers who are 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, 
active duty for training, or initial entry training will be separated. A medical proceeding 
conducted by an EPSBD, 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 the military service had it been 
detected at the time of enlistment, and the medical condition does not disqualify the 
Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of AR 40-501 (Standards of 
Medical Fitness), chapter 3. 

	b.  The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision will 
normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized (entry-level status) if the Soldier has 
not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty service prior to 
initiation of the separation action.

2.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that 
SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and 
types of separation from active duty. The SPD code JFT is the correct code for Soldiers 
separating under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-7.

3. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments 
with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform 
military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency, 
under the operational control of the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources 
Command (HRC), is responsible for administering the PDES and executes the 
Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 
and in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 
635-40.

	a. The objectives of the system are to maintain an effective and fit military 
organization with maximum use of available manpower, provide benefits for eligible 
Soldiers whose military service is terminated because of service-connected disability, 
and provide prompt disability processing while ensuring that the rights and interests of 
the government and the Soldier are protected.

	b. Soldiers are referred to the PDES when they no longer meet medical retention 
standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), 
chapter 3, as evidenced in a medical evaluation board, they receive a permanent 
medical profile, P3 or P4, and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board, they 
are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination, and/or the 
Commander, Human Resources Command refer them.

	c. The PDES assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and the 
PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member’s injury or 
illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the 
job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body 
possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A 
designation of “unfit for duty” is required before an individual can be separated from the 
military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are 
determined to be unfit for duty due to disability are either separated from the military or 
are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military 
service. Individuals who are “separated” receive a one-time severance payment, while 
veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retirement payments 
and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. 

	d. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a 
finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of 
physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may 
reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. 
Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a 
finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical 
impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's 
office, grade, rank, or rating.

4.  Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to 
ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency 
(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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants 
(and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication.

5.  AR 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 begins 
its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is 
that what the Army did was correct. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and 
decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided 
and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the 
burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The 
ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions.  
Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that 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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20230005539


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1