| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his request that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the original consideration of his case by the Board, that was summarized in a Memorandum of Consideration (MOC), case number AR2001060996, dated 23 October 2001, did not include consideration of medical documents that are now provided as new evidence.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in MOC AR2001060996, dated
23 October 2001, which was prepared to reflect the Board’s original consideration of this case.
The applicant provides a Medical Condition-Physical Profile Record (DA Form 3349), dated 24 November 1976, and medical treatment records confirming treatment for minor illnesses between February and August 1978. This is considered as a submission of new evidence that requires reconsideration by the Board.
The DA Form 3349 provided by the applicant confirms, he was issued a permanent three (P-3) profile on 24 November 1976, based on the softening of his knee cap cartilage with loose ligaments in the left knee that followed his injury and surgery. In addition, he provides copies of medical treatment records that confirm treatment for minor illnesses such as colds and flu type symptoms and for his knee injury on about five different occasions between February and August 1978.
In its original consideration of this case, the Board noted that the applicant’s platoon leader confirmed, in a statement attached to a nonjudicial punishment action imposed on the applicant in May 1978, that in effect, the applicant had come to the unit as a rehabilitation transfer in possession of a P-3 profile which had been downgraded to a temporary two (T-2) profile.
The Board also concluded that the evidence of record confirmed that the applicant’s medical problems were not contributing factors to his numerous acts of misconduct. Finally, it determined that the type of discharge directed and the authority and narrative reason for that discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case and it concluded that the applicant had failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice and therefore, relief was not warranted.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded because his medical problems impaired his ability to serve and it carefully considered the new medical evidence he submitted with his application.
2. However, in the opinion of the Board, the new evidence provided by the applicant only confirms what was already known and considered by the Board in its original consideration of the case. The DA Form 3349 provided only shows that he held a P-3 profile on 24 November 1976, and it does not contest the information that was already a part of the record, which was that he had held a
P-3 profile that had been downgraded to a T-2 profile.
3. In addition, the Board finds that the medical treatment records provided only show treatment for minor illnesses and it concludes that they do not show that the applicant’s physical condition impaired his ability to serve or that they were contributing factors for his extensive misconduct.
4. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
5. 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
__RVO__ __RJW__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065389 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/09 |
| 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 | CY2002 | 2002073721C070403
In attachment # 2, he requests an upgrade of his discharge to general under honorable conditions based on his previous good service. Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063099C070421
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that the original consideration of his case by the Board, that was summarized in a Memorandum of Consideration (MOC-AR2000047112), dated 27 March 2001, and an administrative letter of denial of his request for reconsideration by the Board staff (AR2001056263), dated 17 September 2001, did not include an Army orthopedic examination that he now provides as new evidence. This treatment record further provides a medical history of the treatment on his left hip that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090057C070212
Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty. The evidence of record shows the applicant was sufficiently fit to reenlist again in 1976 and to be promoted to Specialist Five in 1977. All his available EERs show that he was physically fit and all rater comments indicated he was capable of performing his duties.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016441
On 4 April 1978, the applicants company commander recommended the applicant be discharged because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), paragraph 14-33b(1). On 22 May 1978, the applicant's company commander stated that applicant had elected to have his case heard before a board of officers and requested personal appearance before that board. The separation authority approved the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03096166C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which confirms that he was physically unfit to perform his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004861
The applicant enlisted in 1976 and reenlisted in 1979, with an eye condition that supported a 2 profile for the eyes. The medical documents on file and provided by the applicant give no indication that his eye condition prevented him from performing the duties of his MOS and grade at anytime during his period of service, even after he sustained powder burns to his eyes in 1981. In fact, the applicant's continued performance of his assigned duties commensurate with his rank or grade between...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088261C070403
Paragraph 2-13 of the awards regulation contains guidance on awarding the Vietnam Service Medal and states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign participated in while serving in the RVN. In order to support awarding the PH, there must be evidence to show that the wound or injury for which the award was being made was the direct result of or caused by enemy action. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106247C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 January 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004106247 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074935C070403
• Probative value of MEB, physical examinations and reports in a disability determination by the PEB and the ABCMR. The MOC, on page 6, notes that the ARBA medical advisor provided an AO; however, neither the AO nor the ABCMR MOC, discuss the overall effect of all, or some, of his ailments on his ability to perform his duties; pain as an unfitting condition; his VA and Army medical records; the postretirement report of examinations in the appeal that conflicted with Army MEB diagnoses, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080020102
The applicant provides, in support of his application, the following documents: a. Chronological time line of events from 19 April 2004 through 30 May 2006; b. active duty orders and a memorandum; c. DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), ending on 20 April 1978, and a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) ending on 15 May 2004; d. DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation LOD and Misconduct Status) with enclosures, dated 18 May 2006, for carpal tunnel...