| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his honorable discharge be changed to medical discharge with entitlement to retired pay at age 60.
APPLICANT STATES: Through administrative error, he was discharged prior to his being considered by a fit for duty review board.
In support of his application he submits a letter from the Adjutant General (AG) of the Alabama Army National Guard (ARNG). In that letter the AG states that the applicant was discharged in error due to misconduct, that he should have been boarded by a medical fit for duty review board to determine his physical fitness for retention. The AG continues that it is his opinion that there was more than sufficient evidence to determine that the applicant was medically unfit for retention. Therefore, it would appear that the applicant should have been retained in an active status as a Guardsman, been boarded by a medical fit for duty review board, and then medically discharged with entitlement to retired pay at age 60 in accordance with Public Law 103-337.
In support of his application, he submits medical records which show that he was diagnosed as having the following medical conditions prior to his discharge: Bipolar/affective disorder, degenerative joint disease involving cervical and lumbrosacral spine, hypertension, and chronic periodontitis (a dental disorder that results from progression of gingivitis, involving inflammation and infection of the ligaments and bones that support the teeth). In one document a physician diagnosed him as suffering from brain damage which was thought to be a result of an anterior cerebral artery infarction, which was most likely secondary to hypertensive cerebral vascular disease.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
While serving as a sergeant in the ARNG, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver dated 25 May 1995 wherein he consented to a discharge for misconduct contingent upon his receiving a fully honorable discharge. However, the applicant added a condition to the conditional waiver. That condition was that the discharge would be suspended until he was considered by a medical review board.
In a review of the applicant’s case and his conditional waiver by the Judge Advocate of the State, it was stated that the applicant had tested positive for marijuana. The Judge Advocate determined that the State Adjutant General could either retain the applicant or discharge him with an honorable discharge.
On 6 May 1996, the applicant submitted a second conditional waiver, wherein he again consented to a discharge for misconduct contingent upon him receiving a fully honorable discharge. However, in this waiver he did not add the condition of having a medical review board consider his case prior to the discharge being published. In that waiver the applicant stated that having “been advised by my consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate me for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs . . . and its effects; of the rights available to me; and the effect of any action taken by me in waiving my rights. I understand that I am entitled to have my case considered by an administrative separation board . . . I hereby voluntarily waive consideration of my case by an administrative separation board contingent upon my receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable that honorable discharge . . . I am making this request of my own free will and have not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.” The applicant’s legal counsel stated on this waiver that the applicant “ . . . denies ever using marijuana. He is waiving the board based on his medical conditions and on the contingency that he receives an honorable discharge.”
That waiver was accepted and on 6 June 1996, the applicant was honorably discharged due to misconduct. He had 16 years, 10 months and 16 days of non-regular service in the ARNG.
Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 7-14, “Action by the separation authority on unit commander’s recommendation,” states that the convening authority may direct that a case be processed through medical channels if the soldier has an incapacitating physical or mental illness which was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct for which separation action due to misconduct has been initiated. Chapter 7 of this regulation states that soldiers separated due to misconduct are normally discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).
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, after consulting with legal counsel, opted to waive his right to a board of officers contingent upon his receiving an honorable discharge. It is noted that his second conditional waiver, the one acted upon by the Adjutant General, did not add that he be considered by a medical review board prior to the discharge being executed. In both of the waivers submitted by the applicant, he certified that he was voluntarily submitting the waivers; that he had not been coerced into submitting them. The Board notes that if he had not submitted a conditional waiver, the possibility existed that he would have been discharged with a characterization of service of UOTHC.
2. The only basis for processing a soldier through medical channels is when the soldier has an incapacitating physical or mental illness which was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct for which separation action resulted due to misconduct. The Board knows of no illness which would cause the use of marijuana, the offense for which the applicant was discharged.
3. 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
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063332 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020530 |
| 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. | 105.05 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050012554C070206
The Deputy State Surgeon indicated that the applicant had declined medical care at the Mobilization Station and requested Release from Active Duty (REFRAD). There is no evidence in the available record which indicates whether the applicant or his family members used or sought the use of these TAMP health care benefits. The record provides a memorandum from the Military Department of Arkansas, Office of the Adjutant General (TAG), dated 11 May 2005, directing the applicant and spouse (if...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501153
MD05-01153 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 200050628. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. By then it was too late, I had gone from being a meritorious Marine to facing an Other Than Honorable discharge from the United States Marine Corps, for one urinalysis failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020596
The applicant had multiple medical conditions (hypertension, diverticulitis, and anxiety disorder) that were diagnosed while he was on active duty in support of OIF during the period 9 November 2004 to 27 November 2005, and he was granted VA compensation for these conditions within 1 year of his release from active duty. a. Paragraph 6-35l states to refer to Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 15, for discharge on the basis of a Soldier being medically...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00159
No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEBadjudicated “Systemic Lupus Erythematosus with Class II Nephritis and Stage I Chronic Kidney Disease, asymptomatic with normal renal function studies”as unfitting, rated 10%,referencing the Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.39and Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The remaining conditions (post-partum cardiomyopathy and hypertension) were determined to be Category II, which can be unfitting, but are...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009964
He provides: * a DD Form 294 (Application for Review by the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) of the Rating Awarded Accompanying a Medical Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) * a DA Form 4187 * a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) recommendation * a Discharge Review Data Sheet * a request for medical discharge * a recommendation for discharge from his commander * a note to his commander stating his reasons for requesting a medical discharge * his National Guard Bureau...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017026
The applicant provides: * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) * letter to the physical evaluation board (PEB) * service medical records * VA medical records CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 13 July 2004, a medical evaluation board (MEB) diagnosed him with neck pain with cervical DDD and bilateral radiculopathy. The board's scope of review was limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100018463
After serving my first years honorably, I made the decision to make the Army my life career and re-enlisted. On 16 February 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, and submitted a statement in his own behalf which was not found in...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00364
Condition 3 : Other Conditions After careful consideration of all available information, the Board unanimously concluded that the CI’s condition is appropriately rated at a combined 20% for right and left knee osteoarthritis and no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination is warranted. The Air Force PEB rated under VASRD 5003 and the Board finds this code and rating is appropriate.
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090015690
Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/09/08 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states: "According to my commander and first sargeant, when i was enlisted the correct action for failing a urinalysis was immediate discharge.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00579
At the MEB examination on 24 June 2003, 10 months prior to separation, the examiner noted a history of psychotic disorder without further elaboration. The PEB coded the condition 9210 for a non specified psychotic disorder and rated it at 10% for mild impairment treated with medication. The Board noted that the CI was responding well to medications at the time of discharge from the hospital, 9 months prior to separation.