| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Member | ||
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) failure of 1 February 1992, be expunged from his record.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the APFT failure in question was erroneous because he was under medical care and treatment from 5 June 1991 through
28 July 1992, for a medical condition that ultimately led to his separation from the Army. In support of his application, he provides various medical documents outlining his medical condition and treatment beginning on 5 June 1991, a memorandum from his unit commander, and a memorandum from a neurology doctor.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 2 March 1989, he entered active duty in the Regular Army and he served for
3 years, 4 months, and 27 days until 28 July 1992, at which time he was honorably separated, by reason of physical disability with severance pay.
The record confirms that the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in September 1989, and that he was subsequently processed for separation through the Physical Disability System. This medical processing was based on the following diagnosed medical conditions: a diagnosed familial essential tremor-severe, that existed prior to his entry into service; and common migraine headaches - moderate to severe, that originated in September 1989.
On 1 February 1992, the applicant took and failed the APFT. Although he was undergoing medical treatment for the medical condition that ultimately led to his medical discharge, there is a Physical Profile (DA Form 3349), dated 23 March 1992, in the record, which confirms that the applicant had a permanent three
(P-3) profile. This document also verifies that his medical condition did not preclude him from taking the normal APFT test consisting of the two mile run, push-ups, and sit-ups.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation, 28 July 1992, confirms that he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 4-24b(3), Army Regulation 635-40, by reason of physical disability with severance pay. This document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 3 years, 4 months, and 27 days of active military service, and he held the rank and pay grade of private first class/E-3.
In support of his case, the applicant provides medical record documents that confirm he began medical treatment for his condition on 5 June 1991. In addition, he provides a memorandum from a neurology doctor that recommended that his military wife be granted a discharge to support him because his progressive medical condition resulted in his being unable to do certain activities. Finally, he provides a memorandum from his unit commander, dated 24 March 1992, that confirms that he was not working in his military occupational specialty (MOS) due to his permanent profile at that time.
Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) prescribes the policies governing physical profiling. Paragraph 7-11 contains guidance on the preparation and distribution of the DA Form 3349. It states, in pertinent part, that the DA Form 3349 will be used to record both permanent and temporary profiles; in addition, to providing guidance on the physical activities a member can or cannot perform based on his medical profile limitations. Paragraph 7-11a(2)h specifically states that Item 7 of the DA Form 3349 will list the APFT activities a soldier can perform within his profile limitations.
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 APFT failure should be removed from his records because he was under medical care at the time. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was undergoing medical treatment for the condition that ultimately led to his medical discharge when he failed his APFT on 1 February 1992. However, a DA Form 3349 on file verifies that this medical condition did not preclude him from taking the normal APFT. Therefore, the Board concludes there was no error connected to the filing of the applicant’s APFT failure in his record.
3. Further, the Board finds that the applicant has failed to provide any independent evidence to show that retaining the APFT failure document on file in his record would result in some injustice to him. Therefore, the Board concludes that that removing it from his record would provide no effective relief and is not warranted at this time.
4. 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.
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
JHL GDP CG DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071144 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1992/07/28 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-40 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Physical Disability with severance pay. |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 281 | 126.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012918
The applicant provides the following documents in support of his claim: DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 18 November 1988, 16 May 1990, and 22 May 1990; Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 16 August 2000; Self-Authored Memorandum, dated 2 May 1990; German Doctors Statement, dated 10 April 1990; Standard Form 519-B (Radiologic Consultation Request/Report); Headquarters, 56th Field Artillery Command Memorandum, Subject: Notification of MOS [Military Occupational...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085096C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS :Reconsideration of the decision by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2002071144 on 25 April 2002 not to expunge his 1 February 1992 Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) failure. The new argument presented by the applicant is that a DA Form 705 shows he "was on profile" during the 21 August 1991 Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and, based on Field Manual 21-20, he should have been placed in a individual special program of physical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019795
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. At the time of his discharge, he was 22 years, 6 months, and 19 days of age. There is no evidence he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his general discharge.
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 | 2002069036C070402
This policy stated that soldiers, who have not yet attended ANCOC prior to their effective date of promotion to SFC, would be promoted "conditionally." The evidence of record shows that the applicant was administered an APFT on 11 April 2000, for preenrollment at ANCOC and failed the push-up event, which precluded him from attending ANCOC. The applicant's case was reviewed by the USAR AGR Enlisted Reduction Panel, which determined that the applicant should be reduced in rank for failing to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067243C070402
He claims that despite being eligible for promotion, and the fact that his record of service suggests that he was deserving of promotion, there is no evidence in his record to show, he was ever considered for promotion to SPC/E-4. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was unjustly denied consideration for promotion to SPC/E-4 and he should be promoted to this rank and pay grade based on his record of service. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence to confirm that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709738
He was reinstated to the April 1993 selection list, and would be promoted upon successful completion of ANCOC with a date of rank and effective date the date of his graduation from ANCOC. On 11 March 1997 the applicant was again conditionally promoted to Sergeant First Class, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1997. That official stated that the applicant could not fully document his failure to attend ANCOC, because he did not pass the physical training test; however, he gave...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709738C070209
He was reinstated to the April 1993 selection list, and would be promoted upon successful completion of ANCOC with a date of rank and effective date the date of his graduation from ANCOC. On 11 March 1997 the applicant was again conditionally promoted to Sergeant First Class, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1997. An official of that command stated that the applicant was promoted to Sergeant First Class effective 27 February 1997 upon successful completion of ANCOC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015605
There is no indication in his military records that shows: * he was issued a permanent physical profile * he was diagnosed with a medical condition that failed retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 * he suffered an illness or an injury that rendered him unable to perform the duties required of his grade or military specialty * he was referred to the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and/or was found to have an unfitting medical condition 9. The Army must find that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017688C070206
Counsel states that a TDRL informal MEB Narrative Summary concluded that the applicant had no change in either his chronic low back pain or migraines; nonetheless, an informal TDRL PEB eliminated entirely the disability rating for migraines. Counsel provides Tabs A through U: A. a DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings) dated 4 February 2002; B. the original MEB Narrative Summary with two addendums; C. a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) dated 4 October 2001; D. the commander’s...