Title: APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by showing physical disability retirement
Author: WoodsHN

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                                    AC88-09278E
Consideration (cont)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by showing physical disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has new medical evidence, that he is a disabled veteran, and that the Social Security Administration says he needs five more years of employment in order to collect.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 22 September 1993 and subsequent reconsideration on 24 May and 9 July 1996.  (COPIES ATTACHED).

In support of his application the applicant submits a 23 July 1997 Halifax Medical Center, doctor’s care form, describing work limitations.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was honorably discharged at the expiration of his term of service and there is no evidence of record of interruption of service for any disability prior to discharge.

2.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

3.  Prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the Board looked at the entire file.  It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of the records that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year time limit.  The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director