| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be changed to a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was allowed to enter the Army even though he had hypertension, which later caused his kidneys to fail. He provides his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, and his medical records as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military personnel records are not available. Information contained herein was obtained from alternate sources.
The applicant completed an enlistment physical examination on 19 June 1999 and was found to be unacceptable for enlistment due to hypertension and proteinuria. On 20 November 1999, a medical waiver was approved. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 January 2000.
On 23 May 2000, the applicant sought medical treatment for a headache. His blood pressure was noted to be 220 over 140. It was brought under control with medication and he stated his headache cleared. He was hospitalized overnight for Nephrology to monitor. He was discharged from the hospital on 24 May 2000.
On 30 August 2000, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 June to on or about 24 August 2000.
On 30 August 2000, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.
The applicant was placed on 454 days excess leave from 13 September 2000 to 10 December 2001 when he was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 1 year, 7 months, and 28 days of creditable active service and had 84 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
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. Paragraph 4-3 states that an enlisted soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of UOTHC unless the general court-martial convening authority finds that the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct that might result in a discharge UOTHC.
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. Once chapter 10 proceedings were started, the applicant was not eligible for referral for physical disability processing. There is no evidence to show his medical condition was the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct which resulted in his separation.
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
__mkp___ __eja___ __rtd___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066619 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020411 |
| 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 | CY2010 | 20100016057
Accordingly, on 4 June 1998, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12(c) of Army Regulation 635-200, due to misconduct with a general discharge. Paragraph 1-35 of Army Regulation 635-200 states when the examining medical officer decides that a member being considered for elimination for misconduct (chapter 14) does not meet the retention medical standards, he or she will refer that member to a medical board. The Army must find that a service member is physically...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069510C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: Apparently, the applicant underwent a separation physical on 8 January 2001. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059305C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant’s medical records show that he was first seen in June 1994 for a medical condition that was diagnosed as sarcoidosis. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101238C070208
On 28 December 1999, an informal PEB found the applicant to be physically unfit and recommended his separation with severance pay with a zero percent disability rating. On 24 January 2000, the applicant completed the reverse of the DA Form 199 and indicated that he concurred with the findings and recommendation of the informal PEB and waived a formal hearing of his case. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050006326
The applicant requests that her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement. On 15 July 2004, a formal PEB found the applicant unfit due to chronic low back pain with no focal neurological deficit with a 10 percent disability rating; unfit due to blood pressure elevations, some associated with headaches, that did not appear to be controlled with outpatient management, no evidence the applicant could do less than 10+ METs (metabolic equivalents), with a zero percent disability...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065401C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her husband’s records be corrected to show that he was placed on the retired list, rated 100 percent disabled, prior to his death on active duty. APPLICANT STATES : That her husband, the former service member (FSM), was undergoing a medical evaluation board (MEB) at the time of his death on 13 May 2000. If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057603C070420
This rule is on the effect of the alcohol on the member's conduct, as well as the physical effect on his body. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was given a general discharge from the Army on 23 June 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03094874C070212
c. The Board, in denying his request, indicated that the evidence showed that he was physically fit for duty at the time of his separation in 1989, and also noted that he served on active duty for a year between 1994 and 1995. f. A 21 August 1992 line of duty investigation, submitted by the applicant with his request, revealed that the applicant had various medical conditions while on active duty. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not submitted any, to show that he is receiving a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005794C070205
On 11 July 1983, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed with a medical or mental condition prior to his discharge on 22 April 1982. His record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel; therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000582
The applicant requests, in effect, that his character and reason for discharge be upgraded from an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) in lieu of trial by court-martial discharge to an honorable discharge due to physical disability. Also on 8 October 1980, after consulting with counsel and being advised of this rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for...