Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061137C070421
Original file (2001061137C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 15 January 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001061137

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. Joyce A. Wright Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright Chairperson
Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. Member
Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his honorable discharge be changed to show that he was separated by reason of physical disability due to wounds received in combat.

APPLICANT STATES: That after receiving wounds in combat on 20 February 1968, he remained hospitalized at Walter Reed General Hospital in Washington, DC, and was discharged without counseling. He also states that he was approved for a 70 percent disability from the Veterans Administration (VA) effective 23 July 1968. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a copy of his Veterans Benefit Award, dated 11 March 1969.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 25 August 1966. He served in Vietnam from 28 February 1967 to 28 February 1968.

His authorized awards include the Purple Heart and Combat Infantryman Badge.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 15 July 1968, and was provided with a 131111 physical profile. The doctor did not recommend the applicant for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or any form of physical disability processing. He was recommended for orthopedic and physical medicine follow-up.

The applicant’s records contain a copy of a SG Form 84-R (Clinical Record Cover Sheet), dated 22 July 1968, which shows that the applicant was admitted to Walter Reed General Hospital in Washington, DC on 8 March 1968, and was discharged on 22 July 1968. He was diagnosed as having “wounds, fragment, multiple, of chest and both upper extremities with median nerve injury incurred while in action against the enemy on 20 February 1968.” He was also diagnosed as having a “hematoma (tumor containing effused blood), subcutaneous (situated or occurring below the skin), incurred in treatment of multiple fragment wounds
of chest”, and palsy (paralysis), median nerve secondary to neuroma
(a tumor or new growth largely made up of nerve cells and nerve fibers) incontinuity of left median nerve following trauma as in the first diagnosis. This form also shows that the applicant was discharged with a physical profile of 131111.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 22 July 1968, and was transferred to the USAR.

The applicant’s records contain a copy of a VA Rating Decision, dated 24 September 1968, which shows that he was granted a 10 percent disability rating for residuals of a shell fragment wound (SFW) to his left arm.

The applicant’s records also contain a copy of a VA Rating Decision, dated 3 January 1969, which shows that the applicant was granted a 70 percent disability rating for loss of use of his left hand and a 10 percent disability rating for a tender scar, right axilla (armpit), for a combined rating of 70 percent disability for his service connected conditions.

The applicant provided a copy of his Veterans Benefit Award, dated 11 March 1969, which shows dates of monetary changes in his monthly benefits.

Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 7, physical profiling, provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted. Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric. Numerical designator "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to
possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment. 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.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his/her office, rank, grade, or rating because of a disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reasons other than physical disability, his/her continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he/she was unable to perform his/her duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration
of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to, or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

Title 38, United States Code, section 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active service.





An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation from the Army. Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military duty, awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service ("service-connected") and affects the individual's civilian employability. Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated.

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 evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant received wounds on 20 February 1968, and remained hospitalized at Walter Reed General Hospital.
However, the applicant has failed to show, or provide evidence which shows,
that he was not counseled prior to his discharge.

2. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was administered a separation medical examination with no disqualifying defects noted and a
131111 profile. The evidence of record also shows that on 22 July 1968, the date of his discharge from Walter Reed Army General Hospital, competent medical authorities determined that he was qualified for separation. There is no evidence in the applicant’s record to show that a MEB was considered or requested by competent medical authorities prior to his discharge.

3. The applicant’s service records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.

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

_inw___ __dph____ _hof___ DENY APPLICATION




                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2001061137
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20020115
TYPE OF DISCHARGE HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE 19680722
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 177
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071274C070402

    Original file (2002071274C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: Award of the Purple Heart, physical disability retirement or separation, and deletion of the AWOL entry in his records. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant’s enlisted qualification record does not show that he was wounded in action, nor does it show award of the Purple Heart.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056138C070420

    Original file (2001056138C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    COUNSEL CONTENDS : That the applicant should receive a 100 percent service connected disability rating from the date of his discharge to date, and should receive all back benefits at the 100 percent rate less all benefits paid to date, plus interest and any other benefits that he is due. Counsel states that nevertheless, a review of the records show that the applicant is entitled to a 100 percent disability rating. The Board notes that the applicant was awarded a 100 percent service...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04102352C070208

    Original file (04102352C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Patrick McGann | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He was discharged from the hospital following surgery. He is now rated at 70 percent disabled because of PTSD, for a total disability rating of 100 percent.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086688C070212

    Original file (2003086688C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, his records do show that he was awarded a temporary physical profile for temporary duty restrictions due to multiple fragment wounds – (L) Hand and Wrist: contusion of left median nerve. Although the applicant's medical records are not available for the Board to review, the Board finds it reasonable to presume that he was in fact wounded in action against the enemy on 19 June 1970, the date he was evacuated. RECOMMENDATION : That all of the Department of the Army records related...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510586C070209

    Original file (9510586C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent. Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017643

    Original file (20080017643.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    (1) The Rating Decision, in pertinent part, shows “[s]ervice connection for chronic low back pain, sacral and left lower extremity pain with limited motion of left hip due to sacral nerve injury, left hip motion neuropathy, asthma, erectile dysfunction is granted with a prestabilization evaluation of 100 percent from April 23, 2006” and “[e]ntitlement to special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a Creative Organ is granted April 23, 2006.” (2) The Rating Decision shows evidence...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012532

    Original file (20080012532.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    That is why the VA can rate the applicant for having medical conditions even though those same conditions did not make him unfit to perform his military duties. The PEB found the applicant to be unfit under VASRD code 8626 due to chronic neuritis in his left leg, including wounds to the left proximal medial thigh, and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. If he should ask the VA to rate him for PTSD, and if he received even just a 10 percent...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014850

    Original file (20080014850.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: a. On 28 November 2006, Orders D333-03 removed the applicant from the TDRL and discharged her from the Army because of permanent physical disability rated at 20 percent. The applicant non-concurred.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050012770

    Original file (20050012770.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant (now deceased) requested, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was diagnosed with a malignant tumor while he was in the Army and that his separation with a zero percent disability rating be changed to a medical retirement. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated in April 2004 and he was medically discharged due to chronic pain. It is recognized that the applicant was diagnosed with a malignant tumor about 4 to 6 months after his discharge from the Army.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018014

    Original file (20080018014.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, letter, dated 27 December 1985, shows the Alternate Board Recorder advised the applicant that the U.S. Army PEB had reevaluated her physical condition and recommended that she be retained on the TDRL with reexamination during the month of January 1987. U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, letter, dated 9 June 1988, shows the Board Recorder informed the applicant that a formal PEB hearing...