| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Anderson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for correction of his records to show he was hospitalized while on a leave status and his status changed from leave to hospitalized, that he be given a lump sum leave settlement; and that he be given continuation of pay until he was medically cleared to return to his civilian job. He also requests reconsideration of his request that his discharge be corrected to a physical disability separation.
APPLICANT STATES: That the evidence he presents shows that the 808th Engineer Company knew of his hospital stay immediately after the accident happened. He received a Gulf War illness that has rendered him 40 percent disabled. Shortly after returning to work he talked with the company commander about his options in the military since he could no longer pass the physical fitness test. They decided to transfer him to control group until he could pass the physical fitness test or until his enlistment was over.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel makes no additional contentions except to state the applicant requests a hearing to prove his case under oath.
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 7 June 2000 (docket number AR2000038728).
The applicant provides a letter of support from both his mother and his father. His father states that on 8 June 1991, the day following the accident, he and the hospital administration lady contacted the unit’s first sergeant to ask for the unit address and other information on the applicant’s activity in the Persian Gulf War. Three or four days later the company commander and the first sergeant visited the applicant, although the applicant was asleep at the time. The company commander spoke to the applicant’s doctor.
A letter from the University of Texas Medical Associates dated 23 July 1991 shows that the applicant was able to return to normal duty effective 23 July 1991.
Subsequent to the applicant’s separation, the VA determined his chest wound to be service connected and rated at zero percent disabling. The rating was later increased to 20 percent and then increased to 30 percent.
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. There is still no evidence to show that the applicant was unfit to perform his military duties. He was returned to normal duty on 23 July 1991. His retention in his unit was discussed only because he could not pass the physical fitness test, not because he could not perform his duties. The VA initially rated his disability at zero percent.
2. The Board finds the statements provided are insufficient evidence to show that the applicant’s unit was immediately notified that he was hospitalized. The Board would reconsider this contention if the applicant were able to provide notarized statements from the unit commander and first sergeant detailing when they were notified and what steps they took concerning the applicant’s duty status when they were notified.
3. 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.
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
__rvo___ __hof___ __ena___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001055902 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010726 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 121.00 |
| 2. | 108.00 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040005762C070208
The applicant provides: a. In response to the claim that the USAPDA had no authority to review the PEB findings, and that the USAPDA had changed the PEB’s 3 June 2003 findings, the USAPDA stated it had a quality review program mandated by the Department of Defense, that the 8 August 2003 return of the case to the PEB was not a change of the PEB findings, but only a return for the PEB to consider additional factors, and that the PEB was free to reach any decision they thought appropriate. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061447C070421
On 30 June 1995 the California Army National Guard informed her that her medical records had been reviewed by a medical evaluation board (MEB) conducted from 1 April 1995 through 31 May 1995 and that the board found her unfit for retention in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. In a 13 May 1999 advisory opinion regarding her 8 October 1997 application to this Board requesting a medical discharge, the Army Review Boards Medical Advisor noted that she had been discharged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004264
On 27 June 2006, the applicant concurred with the medical board findings and his case was referred to the PEB for further medical review. The applicant's record shows that he did not concur with the PEBs findings. On 19 January 2007, the PEB rated the applicant with a 10 percent disability rating for his back pain, zero percent rating for his knees, and zero percent rating for his shoulder impingement syndrome and recommended his separation with severance pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003061
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. His records show he was evaluated by an MEB and PEB to determine whether he was fit for duty based on his rank and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050012770
The applicant (now deceased) requested, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was diagnosed with a malignant tumor while he was in the Army and that his separation with a zero percent disability rating be changed to a medical retirement. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated in April 2004 and he was medically discharged due to chronic pain. It is recognized that the applicant was diagnosed with a malignant tumor about 4 to 6 months after his discharge from the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013796
Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows he had physical profiles for his injuries while serving on active duty. Furthermore, evidence of record shows the applicant reenlisted in the USAR in October 1995 and May 2002 which is a further indication that he was not medically...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067523C070402
Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. On 4 March 1996, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was physically unable to perform his duties.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069837C070402
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 | CY2001 | 2001057266C070420
APPLICANT STATES : That his records show that he did have a disability and that he should have been medically discharged. A medical report prepared at the Army hospital at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, shows that the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 14 January 1988 after being examined for possible medical board evaluation because of complaints of neck and back pain since 14 June 1987 [the date of the automobile accident]. On 6 July 1993 the applicant was discharged from the Army Reserve.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013272C071029
On 3 January 1995, an informal PEB found the applicant to be unfit under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 5295 due to degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, progressive symptomatology since his motor vehicle accident, and recommended his separation with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less...