| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his retirement orders be revoked and he be restored to active duty to pursue Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) processing.
3. The applicant states that he noticed a tongue lesion on 6 April 2001. On 30 April 2001, he was hospitalized for a biopsy, which proved to be cancerous. One-third of his tongue was removed. He retired on 1 May 2001. As of June 2001, he was scheduled for approximately 6 weeks of radiation treatments to care for a small area behind his left cheek that is of concern.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was appointed a warrant officer in the U. S. Army Reserve on 19 January 1966. It appears he had been on active duty since 15 November 1982 in an active guard/reserve (AGR) status.
5. Retirement orders were issued on 19 December 2000 placing the applicant on the retired list on 1 May 2001.
6. On 7 April 2001, the applicant completed a retirement physical and was found to have a lesion on his tongue. He was scheduled for a biopsy. Apparently, this information was not provided to his unit.
7. The applicant apparently signed out on terminal leave on 23 April 2001.
8. The applicant was hospitalized at a civilian hospital in Houston, TX on 30 April 2001 and the biopsy was performed. The specimen was immediately examined and, when found to be cancerous, a portion of his tongue was removed.
9. The 75th Division’s Chief of Staff informed the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve that the command had been notified on 1 May 2001 that the applicant was admitted to the hospital the previous day. The command immediately began inquiring about the procedures to take to retain the applicant on active duty.
10. On an unknown date, the applicant signed an affidavit requesting retention on active duty beyond his scheduled separation date for the purpose of completing hospital care and/or physical disability evaluation.
11. 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. The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability. In pertinent part, it states that a soldier whose normal scheduled date of nondisability retirement or separation occurs during the course of hospitalization or disability evaluation may, with his or her consent, be retained in the service until he or she has attained maximum hospital benefits and completion of disability evaluation if otherwise eligible for referral into the disability system.
12. Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, retention, and separation. Paragraph 3-42 states that a cause for referral to an MEB is when a malignant neoplasm is discovered on evaluation for administrative separation or retirement and the observation period subsequent to treatment is deemed inadequate in accordance with accepted medical principles.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s condition was suspected less than one month prior to his retirement date. It appears that due to the timing of the discovery of his cancer that his command was not notified until the day of his retirement that he had been hospitalized and had undergone surgery for removal of a cancerous growth. By then, it was too late to revoke his retirement and retain him on active duty to obtain the maximum hospital benefits and process him through an MEB.
2. It appears the applicant may still be undergoing treatment. It would be appropriate to revoke his retirement orders, restore him to active duty, and begin the MEB process.
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by voiding the applicant’s 1 May 2001 retirement and restoring him to active duty with all due pay and allowances.
2. That the applicant be evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board as soon as he is restored to active duty.
BOARD VOTE:
__rvo___ __cjp___ __lds___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001060043 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010830 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 136.06 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072374C070403
The applicant states that, because of the medical condition that was discovered while he was on active duty, he should have been referred to a medical evaluation board (MEB). 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. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a Regular member (or Reserve Component member on active duty over 30...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2003-085
The DVA found his cancer to be service-connected and rated him as 100% disabled. In this case, the Board finds that the applicant was clearly able to perform his duties prior to his retirement, but his service-connected condition made him unemployable after his retirement. § 1414 to allow disabled retired veterans to receive concurrent retirement pay and disability benefits from the DVA without any offset.11 However, the 10 See Parthemore v. United States, 1 Cl.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061936C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his retirement for years of service be voided; that he be given the difference in pay that he would have received if he had been retained on active duty; that he be medically boarded; and that upon conclusion of the medical board that his retired pay be adjusted for his additional service. Continued performance of duty until a service member is approved for length of service retirement creates a rebuttable presumption that a service member’s medical conditions have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009325
The applicant states that she presented to the Weed Army Community Hospital (WACH) for an intrauterine device (IUD) insertion on 21 March 2008, while still on active duty. The applicant provides a letter, dated 12 June 2008, from her Naval Medical Center doctor; and medical records, dated 21 March, 17 April, 22 April, 24 April, and 26 April 2008. (Although it is also noted that the applicant stated the pains began about a week after the IUD insertion, there is no evidence to show that she...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00220
Prior to TDRL removal) - Effective 20040616On TDRL - 20040616Code Rating Condition CodeRatingExam ConditionTDRL Sep.Pemphigus Vulgaris781530%0%Pemphigus Vulgaris781560%*20041028No Additional MEB/PEB Entries.Other x 120041028 Rating: 30% → 0% Combined: 60% *Reflects VA rating exam proximate to TDRL placement. In March 2006, the condition deteriorated and new treatment was begun with IV Rituximab given weekly with continuation of prior oral medications.In August 2006, after 8 weeks of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007658C070206
In earlier correspondence to the Board, dated 14 June 2004, he states he had been on active duty for over 100 days when the biopsy was done, stayed on active duty over 150 days after the biopsy, and the lesion had not healed when he was removed from active duty. He also argues that because his cancer was discovered within 90 days after his separation that the Army was bound to treat the condition which would have resulted in his retention on active duty, payment of medical expensive, and/or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013076
The applicant requests reinstatement to active duty for medical treatment and evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for lymphoma. He states he was discharged without an evaluation of his severe medical diagnosis of lymphoma. d. A definitive diagnosis was not established by 31 January 2010 as the applicant was in the process of a full evaluation for lymphoma.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053950C070420
The applicant requests that his medical records be corrected to show he had cancer prior to his retirement and that his retirement for length of service be changed to a medical retirement. He had the cancer prior to his retirement but it was misdiagnosed as hemorrhoids. OTSG opined that the applicant’s rectal carcinoma was most probably present at the time of his retirement physical examination in January 1998.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006055
The applicant requests correction of his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings diagnosis. The applicant provides: * DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record - Armed Forces of the United States) * Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 11 February 1968 * multiple Standard Forms 600 (Health Record - Chronological Record of Medical Care) * Standard Form 88, dated 12 May 1969 * Standard Form 88, 18 June 1971 * Standard Form 502 (Clinical Record), dated 16 August 1971 * DA Form 8-118...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091357C070212
Army Regulation 600-8-1, the regulation which prescribes the policy and procedures for conducting LODIs, paragraph 41-8 states, in pertinent part, that if an existing prior to service (EPTS) condition was aggravated by military service, the finding will be in line of duty. Without evidence to show that he actually contracted actinic keratosis while on that period of active duty, his LODI was properly approved as NLD-NDOM. Also not germane to the outcome of this case is the...