| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his request to correct his records to reflect that he was medically discharged from the Army Reserve.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was "still under orders" when he had his aneurysm. He notes that he was "under travel orders when the aneurysm in [his] head occurred." He also states that as a result of the aneurysm he was physically unfit to perform his duties and was not able to "reasonably fulfill the purposes of [his] employment" with the Army Reserve. In support of his request he submits two statements dated in 1994. One statement is from a physician who notes the applicant's spouse will have to participate in his recovery and rehabilitation. The second statement is from the program coordinator at a rehabilitation clinic who notes the applicant would return home "with supervision" from his spouse "because of the extent of [his] cognitive impairments."
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: In the applicant's original application to the Board (AR2001061187) he argued that he was unable to fulfill his enlistment contract because of his hospitalization in 1994 with an aneurysm. In his most recent application he maintains that he was "still under orders" at the time the aneurysm occurred and as such, should have been discharged for medical reasons. He also notes that the two 1994 statements confirm that he was unable to perform his military duties. In view of the fact that he has raised a new issue in his current request, and submitted additional statements not in the record at the time, the Board has determined that reconsideration of his request is warranted.
Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 29 November 2001 (AR2001061187).
Records available to the Board indicate the applicant was in the hospital on
7 March 1994 as a result of an aneurysm. There is no indication when the aneurysm occurred, or the status of the applicant at the time of the occurrence.
The 10 March 1994 letter from the program coordinator at the rehabilitation center notes that it was "anticipated that [the applicant] will be unable to return to employment for a minimum of 12 months." There is, however, no indication in available records, or provided by the applicant, that his condition was determined to be medically disqualifying for continued service.
The applicant's 5-year enlistment with the Army Reserve terminated on
29 October 1994 and there is no indication the applicant attempted to pursue his military career. At the time of the applicant's separation it appears he had approximately 13 years and 9 months of military service for pay purposes.
Title 10, United States Code provides for disability processing of Reserve Component soldiers who incur or aggravate an injury or disease in the line of duty while performing inactive or active duty for training.
Army Regulation 635-40 states that in order for soldiers of the Reserve Components to be compensated for disabilities incurred while performing duty for 30 days or less, there must be a determination by a Physical Evaluation Board that the unfitting condition was the proximate result of performing duty.
Army Regulation 635-40 states, in effect, that Reserve Component soldiers will be separated from the Reserve when they no longer meet medical retention standards. Such separation will be without benefits if the unfitting condition was not incurred or aggravated as the proximate result of performing annual training, active duty special work, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.
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. There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, which confirms that his medical condition was the proximate result of performing his military service, or that he was "still under orders" at the time. As such, there is no basis to correct his records to reflect a "medical discharge," either as a medical retirement or separation.
2. Additionally, the Board notes that while the 7 March 1994 letter, included with his original application to the Board, advises the applicant to contact the VA regarding hospitalization and compensation, it makes no mention that the condition resulted from his service in the Army Reserve or that he should contact his unit to determine if the condition disqualified him from continued service.
3. The evidence in available records indicates the applicant was discharged upon completion of his enlistment contract. There is no indication his records were ever submitted to a Physical Evaluation Board or that they were referred to medical officials to determine if he no longer met medical retention standards. However, the Board notes that even if it were ultimately determined that the condition disqualified him from continued service it would not have resulted in a disability retirement or separation with entitlement to any disability compensation. Only medical conditions, which were incurred, or aggravated by military service, qualify an individual for immediate disability compensation, and there is no evidence such was the case.
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
__AAO__ __KAH __ __TL____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068022 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | 20020730 |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| 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. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061187C070421
He was discharged on 29 October 1989 and enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve on 30 October 1989 for 5 years. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. 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 | CY2007 | 20070009240C080407
Jerome L. Pionk | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. It states, in pertinent part, that in the case of a member of the Selected Reserve of a RC who no longer meets the qualifications for membership in the Selected Reserve solely because the member is unfit because of physical disability, the Secretary concerned may, for purposes of Section 12731 of this title, determine to treat the member as having met the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015199
As a result, the PEB recommended a disability rating of 30 percent for this condition. As a result, the PEB recommended a disability rating of 10 percent for this condition. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00246
Plantar fasciitis was diagnosed as a co-existing condition at the time the CI underwent evaluation for his right ankle and is reflected in the duty limiting profile and determined to be unfitting by the PEB. Both the PEB and VA rated the condition 0%. The Board noted that the medical evidence regarding the plantar fasciitis condition following surgery was limited and overshadowed by the right ankle condition.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059204C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he was diagnosed with arteriosclerotic heart disease (ASHD) while still serving. In pertinent part, it states that separation will be accomplished when it has been determined that an enlisted soldier is no longer qualified for retention by reason of medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067623C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The PEB properly rated only conditions determined to be physically unfitting for military service at the time of discharge, thus compensating the applicant for loss of a military career. Thus, the VA ratings may be higher than the those that are awarded by the Army but such higher VA ratings do not establish error or injustice the Army's disability ratings and discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016859
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) Policy Guidance/ Memorandum Number 4 (Processing Reserve Component (RC) Nonduty Related Cases), dated 28 February 2005, states, in pertinent part, that DODI 1332.38, definition E.1.20 (page 9), defines non-duty-reported (sic) impairments as: "Impairments of members of the RC that were neither incurred nor aggravated while the member was performing duty, to include no incident of manifestation...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03453
In support of his appeal, he has furnished copies of numerous documents corresponding with the office of Senator Bill Frist, a Medical Board Report, dated 6 December 2004, numerous medical documents from St. Thomas Hospital, The Heart Group, and his military medical records, a synopsis of his Guard Career, a Timeline, a letter of indebtedness from the 118 AW/FMFPM, dated 26 October 2005, his DD Form 214, dated 28 February 2005, SO RX-626, dated, 2 March 2003, and SO RX-368, dated 4 January...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012609C071029
The applicant states the Veterans’ Board of Appeal recently established that his injury was incurred during his term of active duty; therefore, he should have been discharged for medical reasons. It is considered medical opinion that once an ACL tears it does not heal, but it remains loose. There is insufficient evidence to show the applicant’s pre-existing knee injuries were permanently aggravated during the two weeks he was on active duty before he was placed on physical profile on 31...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100146C070208
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. The applicant’s military medical records show he was treated for the back condition for which he ultimately received a...