Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605574C070209
Original file (9605574C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his uncharacterized discharge be corrected to a general discharge for medical unfitness.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discharged due to his inability to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  However, he was forced to take the APFT when he was under physical profile limitations, which was in violation of Army regulations.  His inability to pass the APFT was incorrectly interpreted as laziness by his commander who, based on that perception, refused to allow him to be processed for discharge by reason of medical unfitness.

In support of his application he submits a rating decision by the VA in which he was awarded a zero percent rating for residuals from his left hip strain.  The VA also noted that the applicant suffered from lower back strain, but determined that that condition was not service connected.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 5 years on 26 September 1990 in pay grade E-1.

During the applicant's basic combat training (BCT), he reported to sick call for stiffness of his left hip, sore throat, groin pain, throbbing eyeballs, seeing black spots, flashing sight, dizziness, and blood in his urine.  For those conditions, he was given profile limitations for the period 6 through 13 December, 18 through 20 December, and 24 through 27 December 1990.

While in BCT, he failed the APFT on 27 October, 9 November, and 1 December 1990.  He also failed a modified APFT on 11 December 1990 with the pushup and run portions of the test omitted due to his profile.  In addition, the applicant failed the basic rifle marksmanship test, a prerequisite for completing BCT, on 27 November 1990, and was found to be overweight on 8 and 29 November and 1 and 11 December 1990.


On 24 December 1990, based on a request from the applicant's command, a physician examined the applicant and determined that his physical problems had not existed prior to his entry on active duty, but those conditions were not medically unfitting under retention standards.

On 3 January 1991 the applicant's commander notified him
of his intent to recommend his discharge for entry level
status performance and conduct and of his rights in
conjunction with that recommendation.  The applicant chose to waive all of his rights.

Thereafter, the applicant's commander recommended his
discharge for entry level status performance and conduct
based on his inability to pass the APFT.  That
recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority
and the applicant was given an uncharacterized
discharge on 23 January 1991 under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, entry level
performance and conduct.  He had 3 months and 28 days of
active duty.

On 2 February 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board denied
the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, Entry Level Status
Performance and Conduct, provides for the initiation of
discharge proceedings against soldiers who have less
than 180 days of creditable active service at the time
they are notified of the proposed separation who
demonstrate that their separation is warranted due to
unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary
infractions, as evidenced by inability, lack of
reasonable effort, or failure to adapt to the military
environment.  Soldiers separated under this authority
are given an uncharacterized discharge.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides
disability retirement or separation for a member who is
physically unfit to perform the duties of his office,
rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred
while entitled to basic pay.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331,
permits the VA to award compensation for a medical
condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active
military service.  The VA, however, is not required by
law to determine medical unfitness for further military
service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies
and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis
that a medical condition exists and that said medical
condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial
adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently,
due to the two concepts involved, an individual's
medical condition, although not considered medically
unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

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.  The applicant had failed the APFT on three occasions
when he had no profile limitations, and had failed a
modified APFT when he was under profile limitations.  Therefore, his contention that he failed his APFT because he was forced to take that test when he had profile limitations is not true.

2.  In addition, the applicant failed the basic rifle
marksmanship test and was consistently found to be
overweight.

3.  The applicant's records do not indicate any medical
condition which was so severe as to render him medically
unfit for retention.  Accordingly, the applicant was
properly separated from active duty for reasons other than
physical disability.

4.  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




						David R. Kinneer
						Executive Secretary

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003823

    Original file (20140003823.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. While she may have received medical treatment for various reasons throughout her service, the evidence of record does not show and she has not provided any evidence that shows...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011074

    Original file (20140011074.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He would receive an entry level separation with uncharacterized service and he would not be permitted to reenlist in the U.S. Army within 2 years from the date of his separation. On 7 December 1990, his commander submitted a recommendation for separation under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of entry level status performance and conduct. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the Army not separating the individual for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014351

    Original file (20130014351.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he was separated due to medical reasons. The evidence of record shows that in December 2012 the applicant was medically examined for his complaint of low back pain. While the evidence shows the applicant did have a low back pain, it does not show conclusively that his condition was the proximate cause of his failure to pass the APFT.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014295

    Original file (20100014295.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to an honorable discharge and correction of the narrative reason for her separation from "entry level status performance and conduct" to "medical." The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms she was discharged from active duty by reason of entry level status performance and conduct in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, with an uncharacterized character of service. The service of Soldiers discharged from the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011872

    Original file (20120011872.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 October 1987, her immediate commander initiated separation action against her in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge. On 16 November 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with her service characterized as honorable. The available evidence shows the applicant was unable to pass the APFT during training.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001949

    Original file (20150001949.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests his uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge. His DD Form 214 shows his service was uncharacterized. The applicant's service medical records are not available for review.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011415

    Original file (20090011415.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A DA Form 4856, dated 18 June 2007, shows the applicant's platoon sergeant counseled him to make him aware that he continued to miss training due to injuries and/or physical profiles. A DA Form 4856, dated 2 July 2007, shows the applicant's company commander informed him that he would recommend to the battalion commander that the applicant be new started due to the fact that he had missed multiple training events during BCT. This is known as the Presumption of Fitness Rule which states a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004649

    Original file (20130004649.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    From 30 March through 1 December 2010, she continued to be seen for related medical complications and was diagnosed throughout this period with "stress fracture of the pelvis," "hip joint pain," "cervicalgia [cervical pain]," "joint pain," and "hip and lower back pain." Her narrative summary (NARSUM) prepared in conjunction with the MEB noted: * bone scan of 17 February 2010 showed stress reaction compression, side of neck and left hip * MRI of lumbar vertebrae on 19 November 2010 showed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020656

    Original file (20130020656.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 June 2011, the separation authority approved the recommended separation action and directed the applicant receive an entry-level separation. A review of the applicant's military service records, as well as the documents submitted with her application, failed to show evidence that the applicant was diagnosed with a permanent unfitting condition. Records show the applicant was ordered to ADT on 28 March 2011 and she was discharged on 7 July 2011.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010313

    Original file (20140010313.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 September 1988, his commander notified him he was initiating action to separate him from the Army prior to the expiration of his current term of service under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations). There is no evidence a back injury prevented him from passing the APFT. There is no evidence in his military records and he has not provided any substantive evidence showing a back injury or his wife's handicap caused his failure to pass...