APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his record be corrected to show that his discharge was based on physical disability.
APPLICANT STATES: That, in effect, he did not serve unsatisfactorily, but had a medical problem with his hand.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show:
On 15 February 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-4.
On 24 March 1991, the applicant fractured his right ring finger.
On 5 August 1992, Medical Board (MEBD) Proceedings indicated he had SP open reduction internal fixation of a phalangeal fracture, right ring finger, PO fibrosis with secondary limitation of motion. This case was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).
On 8 August 1991, the applicant concurred with the MEBD finding and recommendation.
On 14 August 1991, PEB Proceedings found the applicant fit for duty.
On 21 August 1991, the applicant indicated that he did not concur with the PEB, but he did not demand a formal PEB.
On 29 October 1991, the PEB adhered to their original decision.
On 16 November 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate him under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2, for unsatisfactory performance, based on his lack of motivation to meet the required standards to graduate from basic training and for his inability to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test.
On 18 November 1991, the applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and representation by legal counsel. He indicated his desire not to have a separation physical examination.
On 12 December 1991, the appropriate separation authority approved his separation and directed issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
On 18 December 1991, he was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-4, under the above cited regulation. His Report of Separation indicates he had 10 months and 4 days of creditable service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commanders judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier and that the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separation proceedings will continue or recur. The characterization of service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military record.
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. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
2. The applicants allegation that his unsatisfactory performance was solely because of his physical disability is unsupported by the evidence of record.
3. The evidence shows that the principal reason for the commanders recommendation for separation was clearly lack of motivation to meet the required standard to graduate basis training.
4. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017427
The applicant requests correction of his uncharacterized discharge to a medical discharge. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 with a reason for separation of entry-level performance and conduct and an uncharacterized characterization of service. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015382
In summary, he stated that he agreed his right hand condition should be rated at 50 percent, but disagreed with the finding that he was not given a separate rating for major depression. Although the applicant contends that as of today he has not had a formal hearing, the evidence of record shows he had a formal PEB on 18 September 1991. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition may not be considered to be a physical disability by the Army and yet be...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00657
However, the Board noted that a 10% rating is warranted for painful motion of the lumbar spine IAW §4.59. In the matter of the L1 burst fracture, the Board recommends by majority decision (2:1 vote) a disability separation rating of 20% (coded 5285) IAW VASRD §4.71a. Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018270
The applicant submitted an updated VA Rating Decision Continuation Sheet, dated 1 December 2008, and copies of his "complete" chronological record of medical care, test results, referrals, consults, reports, and various medical documentation, dated on miscellaneous dates throughout and/or after his military service, some of which were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, they are considered new evidence and as such warrant consideration by the Board. On 9 August 1991, an MEBD...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00941
The PEB adjudicated “pain left ankle and right wrist” as a single unfitting condition, rated 0% and “fusion of distal interphalangeal joint of the left non-dominant ring finger” as unfitting, rated 0%, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Pre-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Pain Left (this should be right)Ankle and Right Wrist5099-50030%Right Ankle Fracture5010-527110%*19990626Right Wrist, Residuals, status post (s/p)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014635C070206
The applicant's military service records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 January 1990. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Therefore, the applicant’s RE code is appropriate considering the reason for his separation and there is no basis to correct the existing code.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000757
The applicant requests that the Army "acknowledge" that he had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Hepatitis C at the time of his discharge. On 17 August 1973, a PEB convened which determined the applicant was physically unfit due to neuropathy, ulnar nerve, left, major, complete, low with neuropathy median nerve, left, major, incomplete, severe and limitation of extension of left elbow to 90 degrees and poor restoration of left index finger tendons, rated as all radicular groups,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017243
The MEB determined that the applicant was unfit for further military service and the applicant indicated that he did not desire to continue on active duty. On 16 May 1968, an informal PEB was conducted at Fitzsimmons General Hospital which determined that the applicants diagnosis of Encephalopathy due to trauma and amputation of middle and distal phalanx, left 5th finger made the applicant unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank or grade. The evidence of record clearly shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511906C070209
The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The evidence of record also shows that the applicants voluntary request for discharge was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. Since the applicant's medical condition was not medically unfitting for retention at the time of separation, there was no basis for medical retirement or separation.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00295
However, Board members agreed that the rating approach by the PEB using the VASRD code for malunion of the calcaneus did not completely describe the unfitting impairments resulting from the blast injury to his right foot and lower leg. Both the MEB and VA exams noted residual arthrogenic disease resulting in ankylosis of the subtalar joint and limited ROM of the ankle, right ankle weakness, right foot sensory loss and right ankle and foot pain requiring the CI to permanently use three...