| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, service connected disability retirement. The applicant states that he should have received a disability retirement instead of being medically discharged. The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the District of Columbia Army National Guard on
11 May 1978, for a period of 6 years. The applicant was ordered to active duty for basic and advanced individual training from 7 July 1978 to 7 October 1978, and in support of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm from 3 January 1991 to 4 October 1991.
The applicant’s 1993, Medical Record, Consultation Sheets, show the applicant was being treated for back pain, which he stated was caused by an injury to his back about 12 years earlier (about 1981), which reoccurs causing him severe pain. There is no documentation in the applicant’s records to show when, where or how he sustained an injury to his back.
On 23 June 1996, a Medical Duty Review Board found the applicant medically unfit for retention.
On 14 December 1996, the applicant was separated from the Army National Guard under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, for being medically unfit for retention. The applicant’s NGB Form 22 (National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service) indicates the applicant had 18 years, 7 months and 4 days of service. However, only 14 of those years were qualifying years for retirement purposes.
Army Regulation 635-40 states that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury, rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.
Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 8, outlines the rule for processing through the disability system soldiers of the Reserve component who are on active duty for a period of less than 30 days or on inactive duty training; and outlines the criteria under which soldiers of the Reserve component, whether or not on extended active duty, apply for continuance in the active Reserve
Paragraph 8-2 states that soldiers of the Reserve components are eligible for disability processing from an injury determined to be the proximate result of performing annual training, active duty special work, active duty for training, etc.
Paragraph 8-6 states that when a commander believes that a soldier not on extended active duty is unable to perform his duties because of physical disability, the commander will refer the soldier for medical evaluation. Paragraph 8-6b states in effect, that the medical treatment facility will forward the medical evaluation board to the soldier’s unit commander for disposition under applicable regulations.
Paragraph 8-9 states in pertinent part that a soldier not on extended active duty who is unfit because of physical disability will be separated without benefits if the disability was not incurred or aggravated as the proximate result of performing annual training, active duty special work, active duty for training, inactive duty training, etc.
There is no evidence in the available records nor did the applicant provide documentation that his injury occurred while performing annual training, active duty special work, or active duty for training. In the absence of medical evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the available service records are correct as presently constituted. The evidence in this case does not support his contention that there was an error or injustice in his separation.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 14 December 1996, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 14 December 1999.
The application is dated 17 October 2001 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__RVO __ __RJW__ __DPH__ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064318 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020409 |
| 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. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03097906C070212
On 1 May 2000 the applicant's commanding officer requested that the applicant receive a medical evaluation, stating that the applicant was in an automobile accident in June 1999 while on active duty. Evidence concerning the applicant's discharge from the Army National Guard is not available. Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the Soldier and the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071421C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. It allows Reserve component soldiers who are involuntarily separated between 23 October 1992 and 31 December 2001 because of medical unfitness to elect transfer to the Retired Reserve for Reserve retirement pay at age 60 based on a minimum of 15 years of qualifying service toward Reserve component retirement. Paragraph 2-8 of that regulation describes qualifying service,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055594C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he received an additional qualifying year for retirement, and that he be given a disability retirement with a disability rating of 40 percent. APPLICANT STATES : That he was honorably discharged from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) with only one year left to obtain his 20 year retirement. There is no basis to grant the applicant's request for any additional qualifying years of service in order to become eligible for retired pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100278C070208
The applicant's NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record Service) indicates the applicant was discharged from the KSARNG and as a Reserve of the Army on 8 May 1979 due to a physical disability. A MEB is convened to document a soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the member's medical status; b. Soldiers who are incapacitated while in a duty status and cannot be returned to "normal military duties" should be evaluated by a physical evaluation board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040006207C070208
The Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG) failed to inform him of the retirement for physical disability based on 15 years of service. The applicant was discharged from the VAARNG and as a Reserve of the Army on his ETS, 11 August 1995. The medical reports that the applicant submits with his request: a.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006480
The applicant requests his discharge date from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) be changed from 31 August 2001 to 23 February 2003 because he was discharged under disability and had served for 20 years. The applicants medical records are not available for review with this case. It is a fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers who are referred to the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the Soldier...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083695C070212
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Had the Board determined that an error...
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 | CY2002 | 2002066245C070403
PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The applicant was notified of his rights to have a board of officers review his case, to be represented by counsel, to submit a statement on his own behalf and to have a medical examination. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028773
d. Neither his commander, nor any official within the PRARNG, ensured that a Line of Duty (LOD) investigation was conducted prior to his release from active duty (REFRAD). The board determined: * he was not able to comply with all of his MOS duties * he received a 20% Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating * he had completed 25 years of service and was qualified for retirement by Medical Conditions The board recommended he receive an L4 permanent profile with the assignment...