| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge for physical unfitness without severance pay be corrected to placement on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) (sic).
APPLICANT STATES: He was unaware of his entitlement to a retired status as a result of his injury.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 December 1964, was awarded the military occupational specialty of light weapons infantryman, and was promoted to pay grade E-3.
While stationed in Korea, on 20 January 1966 the applicant was hunting. At that time he entered into a mine field and stepped on a land mine, resulting in the amputation of his foot. A line of duty investigation was conducted on the injury with the investigating officer recommending it be considered to have been incurred in line of duty. However, that recommendation was not accepted by the approving authority, who changed it to not in line of duty, due to own misconduct. The approving authority opined that the applicant “. . . was obviously aware of the danger involved in entering the mine field, yet he deliberately walked around in the mined area without regard for the safety of himself or his companion. Injury incurred as the result of erratic or reckless conduct, or other deliberate course of conduct without regard for personal safety or the safety of others is incurred not in line of duty and due to misconduct.”
On 19 May 1966 a formal Physical Evaluation Board convened and determined that the applicant was physically unfit and recommended that he be discharged without severance pay due to his disability being determined not to have been incurred in line of duty.
The PEB’s recommendation was approved and the applicant was honorably discharged on 17 June 1966.
Army Regulation 600-8-1, paragraph 39-5, states, in part, that an injury proximately caused by a soldier’s intentional misconduct or willful negligence is considered not in line of duty, due to own misconduct.
Title 10 USC §1207 states that a soldier who is determined unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating, and that resulted from his intentional misconduct or willful neglect or was incurred during a period of unauthorized absence, shall be separated from his armed force without entitlement to any benefits under this chapter.
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. It appears from the statement made by the line of duty convening authority that the applicant was hunting in a known and marked mine field. This would appear reasonable considering that the date of the incident. The fact that the applicant was in a known and marked mine field would certainly be considered a blatant disregard for his own safety and the safety of his companion. As such, the finding of not in line of duty, due to own misconduct, was well founded.
2. Since the Board finds no basis for changing the applicant’s line of duty determination, there is no reason to change his discharge without severance pay to placement on the retired list due to physical disability.
3. 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
___rjw___ ____bje__ ____jpi__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010802 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007112C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 January 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050007112 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Karmin S. Jenkins | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, there is no evidence of the applicant re-injuring his shoulder after his MVA.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706542
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 7 March 1989, to show in section 10a that his retirement was based on disability which was the direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and to show in section 10c that his disability was the result of a combat related injury as defined in 26...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068749C070402
The LODI investigating officer found the applicant's injuries did not occur in the line of duty and were due to his own misconduct. PERSCOM further advised that the applicant's LODI had numerous legal reviews; however, due to changes in statements and questions regarding the application of Rule 7, Army Regulation 600-8-1, another legal review of the investigation was conducted. It was only after the gang members began winning and the soldiers retreated that deadly force was used by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706542C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 7 March 1989, to show in section 10a that his retirement was based on disability which was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009060
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 February 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070009060 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The DD Form 261, dated 21 February 1972, showed the investigating officer completed his investigation of the accident and determined that the accident was not in the line of duty and was due to the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008019
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his records to show his disability was incurred in the line of duty versus not in the line of duty due to own misconduct. According to the investigation, the applicant fell into electrical cables while hanging off a train bridge in Heidelberg, Germany. It stated the applicant admitted in his appeal that he was trying to get down to the train; the walkway on the bridge over the train tracks had a handrail on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064825C070421
On 11 July 1979, an informal PEB found the applicant to be unfit by reason of organic brain syndrome, traumatic, incurred not in the line of duty due to own misconduct. However, it found that his injuries were the result of his willful misconduct. Since the Board agrees with the finding that his injury was the result of his own misconduct, his separation without severance pay was appropriate.
However, after a review of the available evidence, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to raise doubt whether the accident occurred as a result of the applicant’s intentional misconduct or willful neglect. While he did not interview the applicant, as required by regulation and resulted in a determination that the investigation was legally insufficient, based on his discussion with the applicant’s first sergeant, he choose to believe the applicant’s version of the event. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073985C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be granted retirement under the Army's early retirement authority or that his line of duty determination be changed from not in line of duty to in line of duty. The applicant states that he was involved in an accident at his home on 11 June 2000 and because there was evidence that he "may have been drinking alcohol that evening" a line of duty investigation was initiated. He states that following an investigation the LOD investigating officer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014005C071108
The applicant states, in effect, that his narrative reason for separation incorrectly states that he was discharged for a disability that existed prior to service, but he received his injuries three years after he entered into the service. The applicant's VA Form 10-1000 (Discharge Summary) transcribed on 25 October 2005, show that the applicant was transferred to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) rehab program from the University of Missouri Medical Center...