| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John E. Denning | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be medically retired or discharged. He states that he was accepted for enlistment in the Army without any medical limitations. However, he notes that his shoulder condition was seriously aggravated by the “rigorous physical activity and physical contact” during basic training. In support of his request, he cites a portion of 50 FR (Federal Register), page 34458, dated 26 August 1985, concerning the use of “reasonable doubt” by the Department of Veterans Affairs in adjudicating disability claims.
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 7 July 1980.
On 11 August 1980 a physician determined the applicant’s history of a right shoulder injury in 1975 followed by surgery to remove calcified loose bodies in 1979 and 1980 was medically disqualifying. The applicant had complained of pain in his “right shoulder and scapula day and night with increased symptoms with increased activity.” The evaluating physician recommended the applicant be separated from the military. A medical evaluation board concurred with the findings and recommendation of the evaluating physician. As a result of the findings and recommendation the applicant requested separation from the military.
On 12 August 1980 the findings and recommendation of the medical board and the applicant’s request were approved. On 19 August 1980 he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-7 for failing to meet procurement medical fitness standards.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-7, then in effect, stated that members who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for initial enlistment will be discharged when medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, establishes that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authorities within 4 months of the member’s initial entrance on active duty, which would have permanently disqualified him for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time.
Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary, congenital, and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnoses or should have been diagnosed. Army Regulation 635-40 also provides that individuals who are unfit by reason of physical disability neither incurred nor aggravated during any period of service will be separated without entitlement to benefits.
The extract of 50 FR, submitted by the applicant in support of his request, establishes the basis for the use of “reasonable doubt” in determining disability entitlements by the VA. It notes that “by reasonable doubt is meant one which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. It is a substantial doubt and one with the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. It is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence; the claimant is required to submit evidence sufficient to justify a belief in a fair and impartial mind that the claim is well grounded.”
The applicant’s discharge for failing to meet procurement medical fitness standards was appropriate and the applicant has not provided any evidence which supports his contention that his prior service shoulder injury was aggravated during his less than 2 months of active military service.
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 19 August 1980, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 19 August 1983.
The application is dated 11 June 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
__FNE _ __JED___ __TLP __ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058662 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010913 |
| 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 | CY2003 | 2003083695C070212
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Had the Board determined that an error...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014049
However, the OTSG stated that there was insufficient medical information to render a medical opinion. In support of her rebuttal the applicant submits a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 15 August 2005 which she signed but was not signed by an authenticating official, requesting she be given Active Duty Medical Extension (ADME); she submits three DA Forms 7574-1 (Military Physician's Statement of Soldier's Incapacitation/Fitness for Duty), which certify the applicant was not fit to...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00431
On 11 July 2002, the DVA denied his request for service-connection for recurrent anterior instability, left shoulder, because the disability pre- existed service and was not incurred in or aggravated by service. On 6 January 2004, the Board considered the applicant’s request that his RE code be changed. In view of the supporting statement from the applicant’s physician indicating his shoulder has healed and his medical condition changed, the Board changed his RE code to “3K” which can be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059236C070421
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant’s discharge for failing to meet procurement medical fitness standards was appropriate and the applicant has not provided any evidence which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072968C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the soldier’s initial entry on active duty, which would have permanently or temporarily disqualified him for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time. The applicant has not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006028
The applicant was rated under the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and was granted a 10 percent disability rating for code 5003 (for both conditions of left shoulder pain and left knee pain shown on his NARSUM). Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) requires separation with severance pay which is computed by multiplying monthly basic pay times 2 times each year of Federal service; b. he was awarded less...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506129C070209
He states he should have been medically retired from the military when he was released from active duty in 1991. He states that he is suffering from medical conditions (right ankle and shoulder pain and asthma) for which he received treatment while on active duty. It appears that the applicant was a member of the Army Reserve following his release from active duty and underwent several periodic medical examinations; all of which found him medically qualified for continued service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008427
Army Regulation 635-40 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. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the PEB rates all disabilities using the VASRD. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511203C070209
She states, in effect, that she has been unable to obtain VA benefits because her separation document does not reflect that she was honorably discharged for medical reason. The medical board concluded that the applicants high myopia existed prior to her entry on active duty and was not aggravated by her brief period of service. The board recommended she be separated from the service for a condition existing prior to service under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011483
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 January 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090011483 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he was discharged for a medical condition which resulted from an injury incurred during active duty. The applicant entered the Army with a physical predisposition for multi-directional subluxation of both shoulder joints.