Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066556C070402
Original file (2002066556C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 7 March 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001066556

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. Chairperson
Mr. John P. Infante Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: A medical retirement in lieu of his hardship discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that while participating in a physical training activity, while in advanced individual training (AIT) he sustained a right knee injury. He further states that the officer in charge erroneously wrote that it was his left knee that was injured. He believes that mistake has caused him the justification for a service-connected injury.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

On 29 January 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y10 (Unit Supply Specialist). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.

On 14 April 1981, the applicant’s medical records indicated that while he was participating in a physical training program he received an injury to his left knee. His knee was evaluated by the physical therapy clinic, Fort Jackson, South Carolina. However, he was not treated because of his pending emergency leave.

On 28, May 1981, the applicant was assigned to a unit in Germany. On
21 November 1981, the applicant’s military record shows that he requested and received a compassionate reassignment because of family problems.

The applicant’s records indicate that on an unknown date the applicant requested a hardship discharge. On 26 January 1982, the appropriate authority approved the applicant request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6 (Hardship). The applicant’s separation physical is missing from his file.

On 2 February 1982, the applicant was honorably discharged in pay grade E-2 under provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6 (Hardship). He had completed 1 year and 3 days of creditable active service. He was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Ribbon, the Expert Badge/ Hand Grenade, and the Sharpshooter Badge Rifle M16.

On 5 November 2001, the Veterans Administration examined the applicant. It was determined that the applicant appeared to have a moderate disability in the right knee as a result of an injury. The VA concluded that the current condition of his right knee was probably related to the injury sustained back in 1981, while he was in the Army. However, there is evidence to show that the VA awarded him any service-connected disability compensation benefits.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 6 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of genuine dependency or hardship. An application for such separation will be approved when a service member can substantiate that his situation or immediate family's situation has been aggravated to an excessive degree since enlistment, that the condition is not temporary and that discharge will improve the situation.

Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability; he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations and 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. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6 (hardship), was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

3. The contentions of the applicant have been noted by this Board. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s left or right knee was injured during physical training. He was not treated for the injury because of a pending emergency leave. A month later, the applicant requested and received a compassionate reassignment and then later a hardship discharge. This Board believes that the applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability at the time of discharge, which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for a physical disability retirement or separation. The applicant has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary.

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

__rvo___ __jpi___ __rks___ DENY APPLICATION



                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2002066556
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20020307
TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE 19820202
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR635-200,chp6 . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON A35.00
BOARD DECISION (DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 108.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010821C071029

    Original file (20060010821C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the request the applicant submitted to the Board originally, he stated he was supposed to be discharged for medical reasons because of a back injury from a motorcycle accident, and that he was, at the time, trying to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. A copy of a DA Form 31, Request and Authority for Leave, in the applicant's service record shows he was allowed to go on excess leave pending approval of his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000616C070205

    Original file (20060000616C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded. The discharge authority accepted the applicant’s request for discharge, directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted pay grade, and that he be issued an undesirable discharge. __ Shirley L. Powell____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR20060000616 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |20060815 | |TYPE OF DISCHARGE |UD | |DATE OF DISCHARGE |19810507 | |DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-200 .

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008724

    Original file (20060008724.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant concludes by stating that, he exhausted his leave and should not be charged for leave after 12 July 2005 because he continued to report to his chain of command and the unit's administrative support staff, as ordered, and if he had been ordered or instructed to report to the unit's armory during this period he would have done so; however, this was not the case. c. Separation Leave Records: Request for Payment of Accrued Leave, dated 24 August 2005, that shows, in pertinent...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084619C070212

    Original file (2003084619C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. On 3 May 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. The Board notes the applicant submitted all the paperwork required by the Army to obtain a compassionate reassignment.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065418C070421

    Original file (2001065418C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086420C070212

    Original file (2003086420C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Medical records, which she submits with her request, show that she was treated for right knee and thigh pain in April 1980, and in May of that year was diagnosed with chondromalacia, a softening of the articular cartilage.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056617C070420

    Original file (2001056617C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board further notes...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060211C070421

    Original file (2001060211C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 February 2001, the applicant submitted a formal personnel action request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, paragraph 6-5, due to dependency of a family member. He stated in his request that the applicant’s son required special attention due to an automobile accident, was confined to a wheelchair, and required constant care and supervision. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013526

    Original file (20140013526 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests: a. correction of his records to show he was medically discharged or b. an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to general under honorable conditions. The applicant provides: * selected service medical records * Army Review Boards Agency correspondence, dated 2 July 2014, with DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 29 July 2013, with attachments – * letter...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067949C070402

    Original file (2002067949C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The applicant has not presented and...