| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be changed to an honorable discharge under medical conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That an x-ray performed on 10 August 1991 showed that he had a spine injury. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) did not inform him of this condition. His active duty medical records do not include any radiology reports from the many x-rays done on his spine or shoulder. In short, he feels his low job performance was caused largely by his medical condition, which went untreated for over nine years. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having had prior service in the Army National Guard, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 October 1989.
On 8 March 1990, the applicant was counseled that he was being relieved of all duties connected with his job of battalion self-service supply center clerk because he was derelict in the performance of his duties by not maintaining and posting changes to the account log books as they occurred. The counseling acknowledged that the applicant had family problems but his poor performance had been of long-standing duration. He had received six counseling statements prior to this one, mostly for being late to his appointed place of duty.
On 23 March 1990, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for absenting himself from his unit. His punishment included a suspended reduction to pay grade E-1. On 17 May 1990, the suspension was vacated.
On 25 May 1990, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
On 27 June 1990, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. The applicant noted he had injured his right shoulder playing football on 30 January 1990.
On 20 July 1990, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, to be mentally responsible, and to be psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by his command.
On an unknown date, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.
On 30 July 1990, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action. He submitted a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he had many severe family problems since he arrived, to include financial difficulties and possible abuse of their child by his wife. He had a lot of sleepless nights and his mind was preoccupied while at work. He noted that he injured his shoulder on 31 (sic) January 1990 and had 45 appointments since the injury.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the soldier be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.
On 13 August 1990, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge under honorable conditions. He had completed a total of 1 year, 1 month, and 22 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
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. The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.
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. 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.
2. There is no evidence of record nor does the applicant provide any to show he had a back injury. There is no evidence of record to show that he was unable to perform his duties due to either a shoulder or a back injury. The evidence of record shows that he was unable to perform his duties in a satisfactory manner mainly because of his severe family problems.
3. Considering his numerous, although relatively minor, infractions of military discipline, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.
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
__jhl___ __rjw___ __rtd___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062948 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020226 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061447C070421
On 30 June 1995 the California Army National Guard informed her that her medical records had been reviewed by a medical evaluation board (MEB) conducted from 1 April 1995 through 31 May 1995 and that the board found her unfit for retention in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. In a 13 May 1999 advisory opinion regarding her 8 October 1997 application to this Board requesting a medical discharge, the Army Review Boards Medical Advisor noted that she had been discharged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004190C070205
The PA stated that the applicant was currently undergoing a MEB by the Army to determine his fitness for duty status. Evidence of record shows that the applicant experienced medical issues as early as 1982 when he attempted suicide. Evidence of record shows that the applicant's medical condition did not prevent him from performing his military duties.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004229C070206
The VA rating decision, dated 16 November 2004, shows that the applicant received a 10% rating for four out of the five areas: right shoulder, low back, tinnitus, and scapular dyskinesis with left shoulder impingement syndrome. The Army must find unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated. Consequently, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request to correct his records to show that he was discharged for medical reasons.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006779
The applicant states that he was to have a second medical board and that all his medical records were not reviewed before his discharge. The applicant non-concurred the board's decision of not finding his back condition unfitting and that the board should have at least granted him 20 percent disability for his back condition. By letter to the President, PEB, dated 6 November 1991, the applicant stated in a rebuttal, in effect, that he was led to believe that his case would be on hold at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058583C070421
APPLICANT STATES : That she had a compression fracture from an injury that she received in Kuwait. An 8 June 2001 VA medical record shows that she was receiving a 60 percent disability rating for neck and back pain, that the applicant stated that her problem had been progressively getting worse. Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065105C070421
Broken glass cut his eye and glass was imbedded in the back of his head and his lower back. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 2 April 1972, the applicant was involved in an automobile accident and was treated for multiple abrasions with back pain.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01245
The NARSUM documented a normal neurological examination and ROM. The conditions adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB and that were also contended by the CI are right foot pain secondary to pes planus, plantar fasciitis, and fractured 4th phalanx, right shoulder bursitis, bilateral knee osteoarthritis, and DDD of the cervical spine. An MRI of the left knee on 8 May 2006 (2 months prior to separation) was normal.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01338
The Board considered codes 5290 (limitation; cervical spine) and 5293 (Intervertebral disc syndrome) as more appropriate codes in lite of limited cervical ROMs and radiographically identified bulging C5-C6 disc.The Board deliberated if the CI’s overall disability picture of limited cervical ROM near the time of his separation met 10% (slight) or 20% (moderate) under code 5290, or rose to the 20% rating level under code 5293. Upper Back Pain . BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003079
The evidence of record shows that the applicant's case was thoroughly reviewed and carefully considered throughout the PDES process. Thus, there is no evidence of record to show the applicant's other medical conditions were unfitting at the time of his separation from active duty. The evidence of record shows the VA has granted the applicant disability compensation for several service-connected medical conditions.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01497
The MEB also forwarded right shoulder pain, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and hypercholesterolemia, identified in the rating chart below, as not disqualifying.The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the chronic LBP conditionas unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The remaining conditions were determined to meet retention standards and therefore to be not unfittingand not ratable.The CI made no...