| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, disability retirement or separation. He states, in effect, that it has been more than 15 years since his discharge and that he has suffered long enough. He notes he "can't take it [any] more." The applicant 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 19 June 1975. His enlistment physical examination indicated that his defective vision required a physical profile of P-2. Despite the vision problem he was determined to be medically qualified for enlistment.
The applicant's service medical records indicate he was seen for a mental hygiene consultation in July 1975, treated for a swollen lip in January 1977, referred to a "crisis team" in March 1977 and treated for calluses and constipation.
Between March 1976 and July 1977 the applicant was AWOL (absent without leave) for more than 115 days. The applicant's last two periods of AWOL occurred between 16 April and 17 June 1977 and 5 July through 20 July 1977.
When charges were preferred in July 1977, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He did not submit any statements on his own behalf.
The medical history, which he submitted as part of his separation physical examination, indicated his health was good. He was found medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1.
His request for separation was approved and on 16 August 1977 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-40 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, which confirms that he had a medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation. The fact that the applicant may now be suffering from medical ailments is not a basis to upgrade his discharge so as to enable him to obtain medical treatment from a government facility.
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 16 August 1977, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 16 August 1980.
The application is dated 29 May 2001 and 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
__JNS __ __MVT __ __WDP _ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058544 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010724 |
| 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 | CY2010 | 20100013728
On 14 May 1986, a medical evaluation board (MEB) convened at Beaumont Army Medical Center, El Paso, TX, and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found the applicant was diagnosed as having the medically-unacceptable condition of acephalgic migraines with transient loss of vision (existed prior to service (EPTS)) and the medically-unacceptable condition of probable conversion reaction aggravating the first diagnosis. On 3 December...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007826
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his disability findings to add the following medical conditions to his existing unfitting condition and increase his disability rating for medical retirement: * post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) * insomnia * severe headaches * blurred vision * left arm condition 2. A DA Form 2173, dated 10 July 2008, shows he injured his shoulder on 6 February 2008 during deployment preparation activities. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for...
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 | CY2005 | 20050010067C070206
A 31 July 1993 NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows the applicant was separated, as a specialist four (E-4), for unsatisfactory participation with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-27g and Army Regulation 135-91, chapter 4. With the reported severity of visual problems, it is unlikely that the applicant would have been able to perform any military duties between the date of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9505975C070209
The applicant was discharged on 14 December 1977. 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. It contains no information, advice or recommendation which would constitute a basis for granting the relief requested or for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002375
The applicant states he was discharged for weight control failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 18, but he injured his left eye in January 2005. b. Paragraph 3-16e states vision that cannot be corrected with ordinary spectacle lenses to at least 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye or 20/30 in one eye and 20/200 in the other eye, or 20/20 in one eye and 20/800 in the other eye are causes for referral to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015658
The applicant requested a discharge from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-9 because he did not meet the medical fitness standards at the time of his induction as prescribed by Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 2. Paragraph 5-9 provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entrance on active duty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014053
The applicants service record is void of medical documentation which indicates the injury to his right eye had affected his left eye. On 15 January 1985, the applicant and his counsel appeared before the formal PEB and the applicant's disability rating for double perforating injury of the right eye was increased from 30% to 40% due to an additional 10% for a continuing active disease. There is no evidence to show that he had a continuing active disease at the time of his TDRL re-evaluation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020503
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was separated for medical reasons. There is no evidence in the applicant's records indicating he was unable to perform his military duties due to an unfitting medical condition or that he was deemed unfit for retention at the time of his discharge. The applicant did not provide evidence and his records do not contain any evidence to support his contention that he should have been separated for medical reasons.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098272C070212
If his condition was severe enough for the VA to grant him a 30 percent disability rating, then he should have received a medical discharge from the Army. On 30 August 2000 the VA notified the applicant that his optic neuritis to his left eye was service connected with a 30 percent disability rating. The VA, which has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines...