| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded and that he receive eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: That after he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4, he was diagnosed with a cartilage disease in his knees and eventually given a permanent profile. He was supposed to be reassigned out of his infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) but it never happened. He was continually required to perform duties in violation of his profile. He was harassed about his profile and felt he was being punished for having an injury. He was bitter and angry and eventually assaulted another soldier. He was court-martialed and sentenced to confinement. If he had been reclassified, he never would have received a bad discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted and entered active duty on 16 June 1975. He completed infantry training and was assigned to Germany. On 29 October 1976, he was punished under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for marijuana possession. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 effective 1 December 1976. On 7 June 1977, he was punished under Article 15, of the UCMJ for failure to obey a lawful command of a commissioned officer. The punishment imposed included reduction to the pay grade of E-3.
On 25 January 1979, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of assault with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. The approved sentence included reduction to the pay grade of E-1, confinement for 1 year, and a bad conduct discharge. Effective 9 November 1979, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions as a result of trial by court-martial. He had 3 years, 7 months, and 9 days creditable service and 313 days lost time due to confinement.
The available medical records show that in April 1976, the applicant was treated for knee pain which he claimed he had experienced for over 1-year. He was provided with a 7-day temporary profile on 6 August 1976. He was given 30-day profiles on 21 February, 2 March, 9 May, and 20 June 1977. On 30 June 1977, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) granted the applicant a permanent “2” profile under lower extremities for his knees. The MEB also determined that he was fit for duty within his assignment limitations and that his command should determine the proper MOS. On 3 February 1978, another MEB changed his permanent profile to “3” and continued to find him fit for duty within his assignment limitations.
On 7 September 1979, while in a prisoner status, he had an operation performed on his left knee. A 31 October 1979 entry on a Chronological Record of Medical Care by the orthopedic clinic, states that the applicant’s incision was well healed and he had no discomfort similar to the prior symptoms.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the DVA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The Army does not determine who is eligible for treatment or disability benefits from the DVA. The DVA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation to honorably separated veteran’s 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.
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. The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record. There is no evidence that the applicant was required to be reclassified out of his infantry MOS or that he was assigned duties in violation of his various profiles when they were in effect.
2. The DVA is solely responsible for determining a veteran’s eligibility for medical treatment and disability compensation controlled by that Department.
3. The applicant’s bad conduct discharge as a result of trial by court-martial appropriately characterizes his service. There is no basis to upgrade his discharge.
4. 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 this requirement.
5. 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
__ls___ ___jm___ __mm____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057205 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010906 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19791109 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A68.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00295
The right great toe condition was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as two diagnoses (“joint pain, localized right 1st MTP [metatarsal-phalangeal] joint” and “hallux limitus of the right great toe”) characterized as separate medically unacceptable conditions IAW AR 40-501. SCOPE OF REVIEW : The Board wishes to clarify that the scope of its review as defined in Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6040.44 is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013801
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military records to show his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a peptic ulcer were service-connected or combat-related for award of Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). He is requesting that the Boards review all of the evidence and grant his claim for PTSD and his ulcer condition under CRSC for hazardous service and/or simulating war. The PEB was approved on 18 December 1984. d. A DA Form 3713 (Data for Retired Pay),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000694C070206
As a result of that examination, a PEB on 6 November 1978 determined that the applicant was physically unfit for military service and recommended that he be permanently retired with a 60 percent disability rating. A Soldier on the TDRL must undergo a periodic medical examination and PEB evaluation at least once every 18 months to decide whether a change has occurred in the disability for which the Soldier was temporarily retired. Nevertheless, the applicant was discharged from the Army on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090057C070212
Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty. The evidence of record shows the applicant was sufficiently fit to reenlist again in 1976 and to be promoted to Specialist Five in 1977. All his available EERs show that he was physically fit and all rater comments indicated he was capable of performing his duties.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006733
The applicant provides his service medical records. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was separated under the provisions of chapter 2 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations). However, nowhere in his records does it show he was: * issued a permanent physical profile * diagnosed with a physical or mental condition that failed retention standards or rendered him unfit to perform the duties required of his grade and military specialty *...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | AR20060013560C071029
The PEB informed the applicant that the evidence established that his disability was not unfitting at the time of his release from active duty and there is no documentation of permanent aggravation resulting from subsequent military duty. The medical evidence of record supports the determination that the applicant's unfitting condition was properly diagnosed and rated at the time of his discharge. The available medical records show he went before an MEB and a PEB and neither...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010258
He further states that the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) first reviewed his medical records and rendered a finding for "permanent retirement," listed in the narrative to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant also submitted a copy of a DVA Rating Decision, dated 4 January 1999, that shows his service-connected disability rating was increased to 40 percent for residuals of the herniated nucleus pulposus, L-4-5, with radiculopathy, left leg. There is no evidence and the...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01789
The PEB adjudicated “chronic bilateral knee pain secondary to bilateral patella-femoral arthrosis, s/p bilateral lateral retinacular release”as unfitting, rated 0% with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The sixremaining conditions were determined to be not unfitting. Pre-SepLeftRightLeftRightFlexion (140 Normal)140135> 105>105Extension (0 Normal)00CommentStable kneeStable kneePainful motion noted at MEB§4.71a Rating10%10%10%10%*The MEB ROM numbers are from the...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01356
It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB when specifically requested by the CI. Left Knee Condition . All documentation was reviewed and considered by the Board.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01923
The February 1979, TDRL evaluation showed his Hodgkin's Disease was still in remission and he had recovered from his Guillain Barre Syndrome with only minimal evidence of any residual weakness. The BCMR Medical Consultant's complete advisory is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that he elected not to reenlist because he was forced to find work while he was on the TDRL. After...