| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In, effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was medically retired from the Army.
APPLICANT STATES: In, effect, that he received a disability rating of 40 percent
from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He further states that he was not informed that upon separation from the Army he had the option of being medically retired.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He continuously served on active duty for 12 years, 3 months, and 1 day, from
5 October 1972 until 5 December 1984, when he was honorably separated at the expiration of his term of service. He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71L (Administrative Specialist) and he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: Army Commendation Medal; Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award); and Expert Infantryman Badge. The record shows that the highest rank he held while on active duty was specialist five/E-5 (SP5/E-5).
In 1984, a Department of the Army, Qualitative Management Program (QMP) Board, after a comprehensive review of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), determined that he should be barred from reenlistment. The Board cited the applicant’s disciplinary history and annual enlisted evaluation reports as the basis for their decision. There is no indication in the record that the applicant or anyone in his chain of command appealed this QMP bar from reenlistment.
There is a Medical Examination for Separation (Statement of Option) form on file, dated 13 November 1984. This document confirms that the applicant, subsequent to counseling, elected not to undergo a separation medical examination and to instead have his medical records reviewed and evaluated by a physician who would determine if an examination should be accomplished. The applicant’s records were reviewed by the appropriate medical authority, who noted no medical disqualifications. The applicant was found medically fit for retention and as a result, he was medically cleared for separation.
Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, states, in pertinent part, that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, or rating and the conditions must have been incurred while entitled to base pay.
Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, states, in pertinent part, that when a member is being separated for a reason other than physical disability, their continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness. This presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the soldier is unable to perform their 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.
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 applicant’s medical records were not available for review by the Board and the applicant has provided no evidence to support his contention that he should have been medically retired.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant declined a separation physical examination and that a review of his medical records by competent medical authority resulted in his being found medically fit for retention and cleared for separation. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes regularity in the applicant’s medical separation and discharge processing. Therefore, it finds insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief.
3. The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or justice on the part of the Army. The VA, operating under its on policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit. Any rating action by the VA does not necessarily constitute an error or injustice on the part of the Army.
4. 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 __ _ _TL __ __JAM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | ARAR2001061593 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/12/18 |
| 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. | 108.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013993
The ABCMR shall address, among other issues: * Is a medical evaluation and referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) under Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 4-9, separate and distinct from an evaluation and action taken by an MEB under Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-10? If a physician initiates an MEB he should have made a determination that at least one condition does not meet medical retention standards in accordance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083381C070212
He would have to submit a request to this Board regarding his physical condition. Competent medical authority determined that his medical condition was such that he could be discharged. His discharge was again ordered on 25 October 2002, the orders revoked, and he was finally discharged on 30 October 2002 on the date that his physically disability evaluation processing was terminated, and 10 months after the denial of his QMP appeal.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508394C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his record be corrected to show that his discharge was based on physical disability. 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 office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040005762C070208
The applicant provides: a. In response to the claim that the USAPDA had no authority to review the PEB findings, and that the USAPDA had changed the PEB’s 3 June 2003 findings, the USAPDA stated it had a quality review program mandated by the Department of Defense, that the 8 August 2003 return of the case to the PEB was not a change of the PEB findings, but only a return for the PEB to consider additional factors, and that the PEB was free to reach any decision they thought appropriate. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058309C070421
In the right knee he exhibited the same degree of crepitation and lateral subluxation without pain which was present in the left knee. X-rays were taken of his left knee. 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.The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075728C070403
(1) QMP Notification Memorandum from the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM), dated 6 June 2001 with list of documents; (2) DA Form 4941-R (Statement of Options, QMP), dated 25 June 2001; (3) QMP Appeal Memorandum, dated 14 August 2001; (4) Four DA Forms 2166-7 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) covering the periods January 1995 through January 1998; (5) Eight Character References; (6) Commander’s Appeal to QMP, dated 11 September 2001; (7) Battalion Commander’s Appeal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064272C070421
The evidence of record shows that the applicant was physically fit to perform his duties at the time of his separation from active duty. Although he was being treated for a back condition at the time he enlisted in the ARNG, he had indicated that he believed that he was medically qualified to perform satisfactory military service. He requested discharge from the ARNG two years later but his request did not indicate that he believed himself to be physically unfit for duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000900C070205
The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly discharged in 1999 due to being selected for a bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP). Army Regulation 635-40, in pertinent part, provides that when a member is being separated by reasons other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020868
The applicant states in rebuttal to the original Record of Proceedings: * he has documented active federal service of 19 years, 3 months, and 16 days * he is entitled to the "presumption for fitness rule" * the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) did not evaluate his performance of duties in his primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) * the PEB used a diagnostic code prohibited by Department of Defense Instruction (DODI), which misrepresented his injury * the PEB used worldwide...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005342
The available record contains a memorandum from the U.S. Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC) , dated 31 March 1999, that denied the applicant's appeal to his Department of the Army bar to reenlistment and ordered him to be separated no later than 31 July 1999 under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records [ABCMR]) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and...