| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be medically retired or separated. He states that he was discharged from the military “for being unable to perform the tasks required as a soldier.” He notes this “inability” was due to a “medical condition” which was “caused” while he was performing “military required functions.” He states the condition continued to worsen and is still a problem. He submits no evidence in support of his request.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 2 September 1986. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training. In February 1987 he was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.
In September 1989 the applicant’s commander initiated action to administratively separate him from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, for minor disciplinary infractions. His commander cited several records of counseling and his inability or unwillingness to meet acceptable standard as the basis for his recommendation.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation, consulted with counsel, and waived his attendant rights.
The recommendation was approved. On 3 October 1989 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.
The applicant’s DA Form 2A (automated personnel qualification record) indicates he had a physical profile of 1-1-1-1-1-1 and a physical category code “A.” His available records contained no other medical information.
Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the administrative separation of soldiers. Paragraph 14-12a states that soldiers are subject to separation for a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this provision. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.
Army Regulation 635-40, which establishes the policies and procedure for the separation or retirement of soldier’s by reason of physical disability states that soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions unless the general court-martial convening authority determines that the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct that might result in a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
Army Regulation 635-40 also states that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. When a soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement, creates a presumption that the soldier is fit. The presumption of fitness may be overcome if the evidence establishes that the soldier was, in fact, physically unable to perform adequately the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating for a period of time because of disability. There must be a causative relationship between the less than adequate duty performance and the unfitting medical condition or conditions. The presumption of fitness may also be overcome by an acute, grave illness or injury or other significant deterioration of the soldier’s physical condition occurred immediately prior to, or coincident with processing for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability and which rendered the soldier unfit for further duty.
There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that confirms he had a medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 3 October 1989, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 3 October 1992.
The application is undated but was received by the Board on 14 June 2001. The applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__FNE __ __MHM__ __BJE__ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058411 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011018 |
| 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. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012442
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012442 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. Now that Federal law allows 100 percent disabled retirees to collect both disability and retirement pay, he is not eligible because he was retired with only 19 years of service. However, his medical condition was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009952
Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-3, states an enlisted member may not be referred for physical disability processing when action has been started that may result in an administrative separation with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. There is no evidence in his records that shows he was physically unfit at the time of his discharge. The applicant failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that he was medically/physically...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008736
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was rated with a higher percentage of disability and placed on the permanent disability retired list. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was honorably retired on 30 August 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 4-24e(2), based on physical disability: temporary. The evidence of record also shows that, based on a periodic physical examination, a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002638
The applicant requests, in two separate applications, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his separation authority and narrative reason for separation as Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6 (hardship) instead of chapter 9 (alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure). The applicant provides: * Self-authored letter, dated 30 January 2012 * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001518
Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. A VA service-connected disability rating does not establish entitlement to a "medical discharge" or "medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013149
Item 13 of the applicant's DD Form 214 does not show award of the Purple Heart and the applicant's records do not contain an order awarding the applicant the Purple Heart. This period of active military service is correctly shown in Item 12d of the DD Form 214, dated 28 August 2006. Evidence of record further shows that the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (entered active duty) on 5 April 1989 and was discharged (temporary disability retirement) on 28 August 2006.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006168
NGB Form 22 shows that the applicant was discharged from the CAARNG by reason of being medically unfit for retention with severance pay in pay grade E-5 and with zero percent disability. Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is reasonable to conclude that the recommendation from the formal hearing of the PEB, dated 11 April 1989, was valid at the time utilizing VASRD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013402
The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. There is no evidence she suffered any medical conditions other than chronic torticollis, the diagnosis shown in the MEB and PEB proceedings, that precluded the performance of her duties. However, the VA can rate all service-connected conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015897
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 May 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130015897 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. He was ordered to continue formal marches and physical training even though he was instructed by medical personnel to stay off his feet. On 7 September 1989, he was discharged accordingly due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005895
However, his record contains a DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 September 1989 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. While the applicant's medical records are not available for review, the...