Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9307429
Original file (9307429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records to reflect disability retirement instead of retirement for length of service. He also requests that eight days not be charged as leave.

APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his retirement for length of service as a result of a Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) should have been a disability retirement. That the following days should not have been charged as leave since he used these days to prepare for an appeal to an informal and formal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB):

         28, 29, 30 June.1991 and 1 July 1991
         1, 2, 3, 4 August 1991

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 29 March 1995 regarding the issue of disability retirement instead of length of service retirement. (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submitted no new evidence to support his contentions that he should have been retired due to disability.

The applicant submits four letters as evidence that the days 28 June through 1 July 1991 and 1 through 4 August 1991 should not have been charged as leave. Two of the letters submitted do not pertain to the leave issue; one is from Congressman James H. Quillen that tells the applicant to fill out a DD Form 149 and the other is from the Army Disability Rating Review Board (ADRRB) also suggesting that he fill out a DD Form 149.

The other two letters are responses from the office at the Army Personnel Command which authors the leave and passes regulation for the Army. In both letters the applicant was told that there is no requirement that duty time be used to prepare for an appeal to informal or formal PEB processing. There is no evidence that the applicant signed in off of leave on any of the days in question.

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’s request for reconsideration contained no new information relative to the disability retirement issue.

2. The applicant did not submit nor is there any evidence or regulatory guidance that the applicant must use duty time to prepare an appeal, or submit statements on his behalf while processing through the disability system. He chose to do so while on leave. He could have signed in off leave had he chosen to do so.

3. Considering the entirety of the case, the applicant chose to use his leave to prepare information needed for the ongoing disability processing when he could have signed back in off of leave.

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 for payment of eight days of leave he used while processing through the physical disability system.

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




                                                      Karl F. Schneider
                                                      Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017846

    Original file (20130017846.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests: a. reconsideration of her previous request for correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her rank and pay grade as sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7; b. correction of her record to show she was discharged with severance pay; and c. in effect, correction of her record to show her diagnosis of adjustment disorder was found not unfitting. The PEB found the following conditions to be unfitting: * adjustment disorder with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-03078-A

    Original file (BC-2003-03078-A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03078 INDEX CODE 145.02, 108.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The applicant’s original application listed numerous requests; his current request for reconsideration primarily asks that he be medically retired for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Behcet’s disease. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020085

    Original file (20100020085.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) to show he was found unfit for duty and transferred to the retired list with a permanent disability rating of 50%. The informal PEB noted: a. The applicant and counsel contend that the applicant's PEB proceedings should be corrected to show he was found unfit for duty and transferred to the retired list based upon permanent disability with a rating of 50% based upon low back pain, bilateral...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083367C070212

    Original file (2003083367C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his case, the condition is service connected for the following two reasons: the eight year rule says so; and it is an adult condition incurred while on active duty. As noted in the USAPDA advisory opinion, that Agency and the PEB have reviewed the applicant’s case on numerous occasions, carefully considering all the medical evidence of record and the independent medical evidence provided by the applicant, to include the argument concerning both his GHD condition and foot problems. The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507474C070209

    Original file (9507474C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    2 The applicant requests, in effect, a change in his physical disability rating that would allow him to retire by reason of physical disability; that his non-commissioned officer evaluation report (NCO-ER) for the period ending July 1991 be amended; that he receive incapacitation pay; and that his Inspector General (IG) complaint regarding the violation of his profile be handled in a manner consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015351

    Original file (20060015351.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant's military service records contain a copy of his DD Form 214, with an effective date of 19 March 2000. The applicant and his Counsel contend, in effect, that in the interest of justice the ABCMR should reconsider its original decision and correct the applicant's military service records to show that he completed 20 years net active service The bases of the request is their contention that the applicant forfeited 20 days PTDY in exchange for creditable active duty service, he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010544

    Original file (20140010544.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's earlier request for: * promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), “effective 16 September 2011” with entitlement to back pay and allowances * placement on the Retired List in the rank of LTC vice major (MAJ) on his 60th birthday * correction of the applicant's mobilization DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending on 30 April 1991, to show his rank as LTC 2. Had he not requested...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085083C070212

    Original file (2003085083C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's records contain a DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) which shows that a PEB convened on 26 May 1992 to consider the applicant's case. Evidence of record shows the following. d. The DVA subsequently rated the applicant's migraine headaches under the VASRD and also found them 10 percent disabling, not 30 percent as the applicant now contends.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074935C070403

    Original file (2002074935C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    • Probative value of MEB, physical examinations and reports in a disability determination by the PEB and the ABCMR. The MOC, on page 6, notes that the ARBA medical advisor provided an AO; however, neither the AO nor the ABCMR MOC, discuss the overall effect of all, or some, of his ailments on his ability to perform his duties; pain as an unfitting condition; his VA and Army medical records; the postretirement report of examinations in the appeal that conflicted with Army MEB diagnoses, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005711

    Original file (20080005711.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that a relief for cause OER was not warranted and does not meet the criteria of the regulation because he did not fail in the performance of his duties, which is supported by the ratings he received. The Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the report was in error or unjust and in both previous cases denied his requests. It stated, in pertinent part, that an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army...