Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306118
Original file (9306118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by showing that he was separated due to physical disability.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that since the Board’s denial in 1994 he has submitted two requests for reconsideration with new evidence but received no reply. He demands reconsideration for a medical discharge based on the new evidence regarding his current medical condition.

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 23 November 1994 (COPY ATTACHED).

In support of his application the applicant submits a VA rating decision dated 16 February 1996 which grants 100 percent evaluation of service connected nervous disorder from 25 November 1992, but denies entitlement to monthly compensation. A letter enclosed dated March 1996 from the VA advises the applicant of a retroactive benefit payment of $71,490.00.

He further submits a May 1996 letter addressed to the VA and the surgeon general’s office appealing his discharge and demanding he be given a medical discharge based on his own contentions and a letter he enclosed. The May 1995 letter is from a physician who states the applicant suffers from schizoaffective schizophrenia, manifested by depression, hallucinations, sever insomnia, paranoid delusions, and suicidal/homicidal ideation. Further enclosures are letters to the VA where the applicant contends that the settlement of $71,490.00 should have been from 1976 when his condition was originally rated by the VA at 0 percent.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5 of the regulation provided, at that time, for the administrative separation of individuals who had demonstrated during the first 180 days of training that they lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become effective soldiers. This program, known as the Trainee Discharge Program, mandated the award of an honorable discharge.

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 law and regulations cited in the Board’s prior consideration of the applicant’s case make it clear that to be separated for physical disability a soldier must be physically unable to perform duty and that the presence of a medical condition that was acquired or aggravated while entitled to basic pay does not necessarily require an medical evaluation board or qualify an individual for physical disability.

2. The Board’s original consideration explains that the Military and VA systems are essentially different. The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army rating. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit. Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.

3. The applicant did not have any medical unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation. There is no right to a medical evaluation board. Individuals are referred to a medical evaluation board when, in the opinion of their attending military doctors, a medical condition may make them incapable of performing duty.

4. 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.

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

6. 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



Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306118A

    Original file (9306118A.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The law and regulations cited in the Board’s prior consideration of the applicant’s case make it clear that to be separated for physical disability a soldier must be physically unable to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9107784

    Original file (9107784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : That he was rated by the VA upon discharge and awarded 40 percent for his disabilities. The Board’s original consideration included and it is reiterated here that the United States Army Physical Disability Agency reviewed the applicant’s records upon appeal for an increase of the disability percentage from an informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) 20 July 1992. The applicant's disability was properly rated in accordance with the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015199

    Original file (20140015199.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result, the PEB recommended a disability rating of 30 percent for this condition. As a result, the PEB recommended a disability rating of 10 percent for this condition. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089816C070403

    Original file (2003089816C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: 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: Had the applicant's condition not been found to be EPTS, the prohibition against pyramiding would have constrained the Army to rating only one each of the applicant's foot conditions, for a possible maximum disability rating of 20 percent.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018886

    Original file (20100018886.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    After physical disability evaluation, on 16 November 2000, the applicant was separated from active duty because of permanent physical disability with a rating of zero percent (0%); c. Medical records clearly show the applicant was suffering from physical and mental disabilities, which made him unfit and unable to perform his military duties. On 7 November 1996, a medical evaluation board (MEBD) convened to assess the applicant's medical condition. The applicant and his counsel contend that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000175C070206

    Original file (20050000175C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also states that the Department of Veterans Affairs had found him to have schizophrenia “which they claim pre-existed service, but was exacerbated by [his] period of service.” He notes that previous decisions by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) have “sarcastically and falsely” portrayed his disability as 10 percent for his back and 10 percent for his foot and have referred to him as having a personality disorder. It noted a Board of Veterans Appeals decision...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065862C070421

    Original file (2001065862C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 November 1997 the applicant reported to medical personnel that she experienced migraines one to three times per month and on that particular day (19 November) she had taken medication for her migraine and was requesting that she be assigned to her quarters for the day. The VA's decision to grant the applicant a 50 percent disability rating for her headaches was based on information contained in the applicant's MEB and a 6 August 1998 examination in which the applicant stated that "the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306756

    Original file (9306756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his application the applicant submits a 1996 disability rating increase by the VA, copies of medical records of treatments subsequent to the Board’s 1995 decision and a personal statement. An advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from Army Review Board Agency’s, medical advisor that opined that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s contention and that at time of separation the applicant was properly diagnosed and rated for his condition. Although the rating...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076354C070215

    Original file (2002076354C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He could say the applicant performed his duties as they were required of him to do. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. The evidence of record shows that competent military medical authorities diagnosed the applicant with a personality disorder.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017722

    Original file (20100017722.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the original proceedings, the Board found that the applicant had been properly assigned a disability rating from the Army based on the unfitting conditions diagnosed at the time. The letter, dated 14 May 2009, written by a representative from The American Legion and provided by the applicant states that: a. the applicant was rated 30 percent disabled for a period of 5 years while on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL); b. the VA rated him 40 percent disabled for the same...