| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his military records be corrected in such a way that he would be recognized as a military veteran for benefit purposes and that he would be permitted to reenlist.
APPLICANT STATES: He was "in" the Army and was considered a soldier in training. He notes that he joined the Army, passed his physical, and after his diabetes was discovered he signed medical waivers to "keep [him] in." He states that he "just discovered that [he is] a veteran, and deserve[s] to be treated as such, with benefits." He submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 17 November 1981 at the age of 23. His entrance physical examination was not part of records available to the Board.
On 21 November 1981, while undergoing training, the applicant was admitted to Noble Army Hospital "in a moderately severe diabetic ketoacidosis."
A narrative summary, completed as part of his medical evaluation, noted that the applicant had been insulin depended since age 14 and at the time of his entry on active duty was on "70 units of NPH per day." The summary indicated that he had a positive glucose test during his enlistment processing, but was told to drink plenty of fluids and not to eat anything before returning the following day to be tested again. The following day his urine showed no glucose and he was accepted for enlistment.
The applicant indicated during his medical evaluation in November 1981 that he thought being on active duty, with vigorous exercise and diet, his diabetes would be cured and he stopped taking his insulin after reporting to the reception station. The applicant was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and the evaluating physician recommended the applicant be discharged as a result of his unfitting medical condition, which existed prior to his enlistment and was not aggravated by his military service.
Although the applicant initially indicated that he did not want to be separated from the military, on 25 November 1981 he requested discharge as a result of his medical condition and waived his right to further disability processing. He noted in his request that he understood that he would be separated by reason of a pre-existing medical condition and that the Veterans Administration would determine entitlement to VA benefits.
The applicant was honorably discharged on 29 December 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5 (physical disability existing prior to entering service).
Army Regulation 635-40, Chapter 5, provides for the separation of an enlisted soldier for non-service aggravated medical conditions, which existed prior to the soldier's entry on active duty when the soldier waives his entitlement to further disability processing.
Generally, a honorable or general discharges qualifies a veteran for most VA benefits. However, the final determination of entitlement to such benefits is strictly within the jurisdiction of the VA.
Army Regulation 601-210, which establishes the policies and provision for enlistment in the Army, states that any applicant who was last separated or discharged from any component of the Army Forces for medical reasons with or without disability entitlement will require a waiver to enlist. The regulation also notes other criteria that an individual must meet in order to enlist, including age, education, and moral standards.
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 applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.
2. 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 that requirement.
3. The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.
4. The applicant is advised to contact his servicing VA office and local Army recruiter for assistance in determining eligibility for VA benefits or enlistment in the Army.
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 | AR2002067010 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001448
The applicant provides: * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) * Standard Form (SF) 600 (Health Record - Chronological Record of Medical Care) (11 pages) * MEB and PEB * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision * PDBR Record of Proceedings with enclosures * Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) denial letter and DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Response to first denial with filing with both the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012871
On 11 February 1991, the separation authority waived further counseling and rehabilitative requirements and approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, based on drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show he was medically discharged or retired based on permanent disability because his service medical treatment records document that he had elevated glucose levels which was an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016489
He provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * medical evaluation board (MEB) initiation and retention memoranda * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating decisions * numerous VA medical records CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 May 1993, an informal PEB determined he was physically unfit for diabetes mellitus (VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 7913). The PEB recommended his separation with severance pay with a 10-percent...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01445
The CI was then medically separated with a 20% disability rating. CI CONTENTION: “The 20% rating does not fit the disability, Type I Diabetes with controlled diet, restricted activities, and insulin dependent starts at the 40% rating. 3 PD1201445 RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of his prior medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02165
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes the applicant developed and was diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes while a member of the USAFR and not on active duty for more than 30 days. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPD advises that military medical records reflect the applicant was diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes in Feb 91 while undergoing a Reserve periodic medical...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00301
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “After 6.5 years dedicated to the Service of the Air Force (4 at USAFA and 2.5 full-time active), I was determined unfit physically due to the onset of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Unfitting Condition: DM Type I Condition . Therefore, the Board determined that neither condition could be argued as unfitting at the time of separation from Service and subject to separation rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02137
The “diabetes mellitus, type 1 (insulin dependent)” condition was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as not meeting retention standards IAW AR 40-501.The MEB also identified and forwarded “hyperlipidemia” as meeting retention standards, for further PEB adjudication.The Informal PEB adjudicated “insulin dependent diabetes” as unfitting, rated 20%. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01466
SEPARATION DATE: 20090426 The CI was still taking oral medications only (no injected insulin) and had undergone surgery in March 2008 (Abdominoplasty) with continued high blood sugar levels (glucose 262 with normal 74-106) and high Glycosolated hemoglobin levels (A1C 9.5 with normal 4.2-7.0). I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009966
The applicant states: * he is diagnosed as having diabetes and arteriosclerosis which had their onset while on active duty * while on active duty he had to exercise daily to control his diabetes * he was denied a medical examination at the time of his separation despite having abnormal glucose, cholesterol, and triglyceride levels * the Army did not keep proper records of either his enlisted or officer service * the reason for his failure to be promoted was racial * personnel not selected...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02242
Separation Date: 20050831 The MEB examiner documented that the CI could not do unlimited running, walking, biking or swimming and further opined that she should not be allowed to operate heavy equipment.The Board considered the 20% rating versus a 40% rating (requiring insulin, restricted diet and regulation of activities).After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 20% for the DM Type I...