Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510334C070209
Original file (9510334C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his records be corrected to show that his disabilities were incurred while he was engaged in combat with an enemy of the United States.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that since the VA awarded him a disability rating, the Army should certify that his medical conditions were incurred in combat with an enemy of the United States.

In support of his application he submits a VA decisional transcript of a hearing which resulted in his being awarded a 20 percent disability rating for chronic low back strain, and a zero percent rating for hearing loss.  In that transcript the applicant’s counsel stated “Regarding the low back disability, [the applicant] will testify to the effect that he first injured his back while he was stationed in Vietnam by falling over some sand bags and since that time he has recurrent back 
problems . . .”

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 January 1963, was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of switchboard operator, was promoted to pay grade E-3, and immediately reenlisted on 5 March 1964.  During that enlistment, he was awarded the MOS of a pay distribution specialist, served in Vietnam, and was promoted to pay grade E-6.  He continued to serve through reenlistments, being awarded the MOS of club manager, and was promoted to pay grade E-7.  He was honorably retired for length of service (20-year retirement) on 31 May 1984.

Guidance provided to the Board from the Physical Disability Agency (PDA) specifies that a disability or injury is considered to be a “direct result of armed conflict” if the injury or disease was incurred while the soldier was engaged in armed conflict, an operation or incident, involving armed conflict or the likelihood of armed conflict, while interred as a prisoner of war or detained against their will in the custody of a hostile or belligerent force, or while escaping or attempting to escape from such prisoner of war or detained status.  The disability must also be based upon a direct causal relationship between the armed conflict, operation, prisoner of war, or detained status and the injury.  This is not a casual connection or just having something occur to the soldier while in an area of armed conflict or hostilities.  Normally, soldiers who sustain injuries while assigned to administrative, supply, or other support duties in the rear area are not considered to be in the area of combat operations unless the injury is actually incurred during an enemy attack in the immediate area.  There must be a direct cause and effect between the “armed conflict” and the disability.

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

1.  Whether or not the applicant’s back problem had its inception while he was in Vietnam, there is no indication that it was incurred as a result of his engaging in an armed conflict.

2.  To the contrary, the counsel representing him at the VA hearing stated that he had tripped over some sandbags.  Considering his MOS at that time, a pay distribution specialist, and a lack of evidence that he was under enemy attack at the time, it does not seem likely that his back injury was a result of an armed conflict.

3.  As such, there is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant submitted any documentation which would show that his disabilities were incurred in combat, as defined by the PDA.

4.  In view of the preceding, 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




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510920C070209

    Original file (9510920C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The disability must also be based upon a direct causal relationship between the armed conflict, operation, prisoner of war, or detained status and the injury. This is not a casual connection or just having something occur to the soldier while in an area of armed conflict or hostilities. There is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant submitted any documentation which would show that his disabilities were incurred in combat, as defined by the PDA.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607982C070209

    Original file (9607982C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The MEB referred the applicant to a physical evaluation board (PEB). The PEB recommended that the applicant be discharged with severance pay, rated 10 percent disabled. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: a. by correcting the DA Form 199, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, dated 29 July 1994, of the individual concerned, to show VASRD codes 9411 and 9401, rated 30 percent disabled; b. by showing that she was placed on the TDRL rated...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069837C070402

    Original file (2002069837C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010071

    Original file (20060010071.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his DA Form 199, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, issued on 3 September 1985, be corrected to show that his retirement is based on a disability resulting from injury or disease received in line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in line of duty during a period of war as defined by law; and that his disability resulted from a combat related injury as defined in 26 US Code, Section 104. The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014359

    Original file (20130014359.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB determined he was unfit for duty, granted him a zero percent disability rating, and recommended his permanent disability retirement if otherwise qualified. On 9 December 2010, the applicant nonconcurred with the findings and recommendations of the PEB and requested a formal hearing of his case. The PEB found the applicant physically unfit and recommended a combined rating of 40 percent and that he be retired due to permanent disability.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020266

    Original file (20120020266.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) to show his retirement was based on a disability from an injury that was received in the line of duty as the direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war as defined by law. On 5 November 2010, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened and considered the applicant's conditions under the provisions of Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003162

    Original file (20120003162.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 February 1994, he retired after completing 20 years and 26 days of active military service. Department of Defense (DOD) guidance on CRSC states a combat-related disability is a disability with an assigned medical diagnosis code from the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities that was incurred: a. as a direct result of armed conflict; b. while engaged in hazardous service; c. in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war; or d. through an instrumentality of war. A finding...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013058

    Original file (20090013058.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A 22 April 2009 PEB proceeding (DA Form 199) shows that the applicant was found unfit for continuation on active duty and afforded a 10 percent disability evaluation for her back condition. In the determination section, at item 10A, it states her condition was not based on a disability from an injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in a period of war. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1413a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025534

    Original file (20100025534.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on a review of the medical evidence of record, the PEB found the applicant physically unfit; recommended a combined rating of 20% disability rating percentage; and separation with severance pay, if otherwise qualified. c. It shows in item 10 (If retired [separated] because of disability, the board makes the recommended finding that:): (1) [paragraph A] "the Soldier's retirement [separation] is not based on disability from injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-164

    Original file (2005-164.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    To be eligible the veteran must be in receipt of retired pay based on 20 years or more of service, and must have a compensable service-connected disability from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). Coast Guard Medical Record Entries Related to the Applicant's Back Injury and PTSD A medical note dated June 17, 1958, states that the applicant was struck in his mid abdomen at approximately 8:00 a.m. while aboard ship. In order to qualify for CRSC the applicant needs to show that he is in...