| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge for unsuitability be corrected to an honorable discharge for medical disqualification.
APPLICANT STATES: That his general discharge for unsuitability is in error.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 October 1969, was awarded the military occupational specialty of stock accounting specialist, was assigned to Europe, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.
While on active duty he was placed on physical profile restrictions twice; once for an injury to an old surgical scar, and the other for dehydration. He was also treated on an outpatient basis for stomach pain, upper respiratory infection, and breathing problems. On one occasion on 26 March 1971, while the applicant was being treated for difficulties breathing and an ache from the waste down, the applicant admitted that he had “shot some opium [intravenously] 3 days ago.”
In August 1971 the applicant was admitted to a military hospital for serum hepatitis.
On 13 September 1971 the applicant was admitted to a military hospital once again for nausea and general malaise and dark urine. At that time he admitted that he was still using drugs intravenously.
On 18 November 1971 the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge for unsuitability, and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation. The applicant waived his rights.
The applicant was then given a mental status evaluation in which he was determined to be mentally sound. The applicant then underwent a separation physical examination in which he was determined medically qualified without any physical profile restrictions. The examining physician stated on his SF Form 89, Report of Medical History, that “No significant past medical history except episode of viral hepatitis – now no problem.”
On 22 November 1971 the applicant’s commander submitted his recommendation to discharge the applicant. His commander related how the applicant had been counseled about his attitude towards his work and the Army on 11 occasions.
The applicant’s commander’s recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate for unsuitability on 17 January 1972.
Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy of those individuals who displayed a lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively. When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.
Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board. Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition. For example, a noncommissioned officer who receives above average evaluation reports and passes Army Physical Fitness Tests (which have been modified to comply with the individual’s physical profile limitations) after the individual was diagnosed as having the medical disqualification would probably be found to be fit for duty. The fact that the individual has a medically disqualifying condition does not mandate the person’s separation from the service. Fitness for duty, within the perimeters of the individual’s grade and military specialty, is the determining factor in regards to separation. If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an individual will be discharged with severance pay or retired. An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service. In this regard, the Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career.
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.
Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation with severance pay of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant was determined medically qualified during his separation physical examination. The physician conducting that examination had been aware of the applicant’s hepatitis when he made that determination.
2. Without a finding of medical disqualification, there was no basis to refer the applicant to a PEB or to consider him for a medical retirement.
3. As such, his discharge for unsuitability was appropriate and there is no reason to change it.
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
___bje___ ___mkp _ ___le___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061666 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020207 |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004098
f. The reverse side of a DA Form 7349 (Initial Medical Review - Annual Medical Certificate), dated 7 January 2005, which shows a physician opined that he was unfit for continued service in the USAR and required a non-duty PEB to evaluate his conditions of Hepatitis C and hearing loss. He requested an informal PEB to review his medical records for a final determination of his medical fitness for retention. Since he had failed to make an election within the prescribed time limits the case...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01545
A 10% rating requires the symptoms to be “mild” and a higher rating of 30%, requires the condition to be “severe”.The Board unanimously agreed that well-established medical principles documents that the upper abdominal pain with diarrhea and episodic elevation of liver enzymes is a known consequence of cholecystectomy and that this may occur acutely or at distant interval after surgery unrelated to known stimuli.The Board unanimously agreed that, based on acceptable medical practice, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076923C070215
In support of the applicant’s request, counsel submits a copy of the applicant’s October 2000 medical examination, documents associated with his disability processing, extracts from the applicant’s service medical treatment records which detail treatment for his migraine headaches, and copies of a July 2000 permanent physical profile based on his hepatitis and bilateral hearing loss and a March 1999 temporary profile based on his migraine headaches. The applicant’s formal PEB convened on 20...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510220C070209
After he stopped attending drills, he was discharged for medical disqualification upon the advice of the ARNG State Surgeon even though he had been found physically fit to perform his duties by a physical evaluation board (PEB). This paragraph requires a member who is determined to be medically disqualified for retention to be discharged or transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) (regardless of years of service), unless the member requests, and is granted, a waiver of the medical...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00908
While the DES considers all of the service member's medical conditions, compensation can only be offered for those medical conditions that cut short the member’s service career; and the Board’s assessment of fitness determinations is premised on the MOS-specific functional limitations in evidence at the time of separation. Bilateral Knee Condition . RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003708
Based on a review of the medical evidence of record, applicant's testimony, and presentation by his counsel, the formal PEB concluded that the findings and recommendations of the informal PEB are appropriate as stated in paragraph 2-1 of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003708
Based on a review of the medical evidence of record, applicant's testimony, and presentation by his counsel, the formal PEB concluded that the findings and recommendations of the informal PEB are appropriate as stated in paragraph 2-1 of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069118C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge for unsuitability be corrected to a medical discharge with a 100% disability rating. The applicant’s commander’s recommendation was accepted and the applicant was furnished a General Discharge Certificate on 3 June 1969 due to unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. There is no record that the applicant was treated for any medical conditions while he was on active duty nor has he submitted any evidence of any such treatment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607088C070209
Army Regulation 635-40, the regulation which governs PEBs, paragraph 4-19b, states that a PEB may decide that a soldiers physical defect was EPTS, but must then determine whether the condition was aggravated by military service. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability, provides for the medical retirement and for the discharge for physical unfitness, with severance pay, of soldiers who incur a physical disability in the line of duty while serving...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007585
The applicant states, in effect, that he was erroneously enlisted on 9 February 1972 under the "Project 100,000" program because he was only 17 years and 40 days of age and because he did not meet the mental category scores required for enlistment. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that he was medically unfit or that he contracted hepatitis C while on active duty. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of...