Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072981C070403
Original file (2002072981C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 24 April 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002072981

         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
Mr. Vic Whitney Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. Chairperson
Ms. Terry L. Placek Member
Mr. Robert Duecaster 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: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was discharged based on a physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES: That he believes his records should be corrected to show he was medically discharged, due to a severe psychiatric disease. He provides copies of his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records, copies of 9 pages of Army medical records, a VA Rating Decision dated 19 September 1997, a copy of a memorandum and summary from the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program (CCEP), Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, Virginia and a copy of a Social Security Administration (SSA) Decision.

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

A DA Form 47 (Record of Induction), dated 9 November 1970 indicates he received a waiver of his prior civil convictions for burglary and petty larceny in 1963, robbery with intent to kill in 1963 and fighting in 1965. In addition, it also noted that he had a bad knee and head injury.

On 9 February 1971, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

On 15 July 1971, he was issued nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for an assault with a chain on another soldier. His punishment included a forfeiture, restriction and extra duty.

During the period 13 to 15 January 1972, he was absent without leave. There is nothing in the available records to show any punishment he received.

On 9 February 1973, he was honorably separated under Army Regulation 635-200, based on the expiration of his term of service. His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 11 months and 28 days of creditable service and 3 days of lost time.

On 10 February 1973, he was transferred to the Army Reserve (USAR) for completion of his service obligation. Through enlistments, reenlistments and extensions, he continued his USAR service until his discharge by reason of expiration of term of service (ETS) on 8 October 1996.






On 6 April 1988, in a memorandum for the applicant’s commander, a USAR Psychiatrist indicated he discussed the applicant’s prior sleeping difficulties prior to his going to a school course at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas and that he had been treated for his knee problem.

During the period 3 January to 21 June 1991, he was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm and served in Southwest Asia from 6 February to 10 June 1991.

On 17 December 1993, in a letter to his commander, he requested a medical discharge without further explanation.

On 3 January 1994, his commander, in response to his request for a medical discharge, advised that he was being directed to submit to a physical examination to determine his fitness for subsequent retention.

On 22 February 1994, the Unit Personnel Technician (UPT) advised the applicant that if he accumulated 9 unauthorized absences within a year, he could be declared an “Unsatisfactory Participant” and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve for the balance of his obligation until 6 October 1996.

On 25 February 1994, his commander advised him that a retention physical examination was being scheduled at Reynolds Army Hospital, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He was directed to bring all medical documents pertinent to his medical condition to the UPT not later that 0800, 11 March 1994. There is no evidence that this was accomplished.

On 17 March 1994, a memorandum for the commander, Reynolds Army Hospital requested a retention physical examination for the applicant.

During the period 22 to 25 April 1995, the applicant was registered as a VA patient at the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program (CCEP) at Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, Virginia. On 25 April 1995, the applicant declined further evaluation by the CCEP.

A 26 May 1995 memorandum by the CCEP physician at Portsmouth indicates the applicant should be separated from the service. Further, he indicates that apparently the applicant was supposed to be sent to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for a PEB (Physical Evaluation Board) and/or administrative separation on marijuana charges dating from a 1991 command urinalysis. He has had multiple admissions at the VA for PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and major depression. The applicant reported directly to Portsmouth, bypassing Fort Bragg.

On 15 August 1996, the SSA determined he was entitled to a period of disability beginning on 24 October 1995 and to disability insurance benefits through at least the date of this decision.

The records are absent on the reason for and the date of his transfer to the USAR Control Group, Individual Ready Reserve.

On 8 October 1996, ARPC-SFS-R Orders D-10-686890, Army Reserve Personnel Center, honorably discharged the applicant under Army Regulation 135-178 (Reserve Component Enlisted Separations) based on the expiration of his term of service. As of 8 February 1992, the applicant had completed 18 years of qualifying service for retirement. No additional qualifying years of service were recorded between 9 February 1992 and his discharge on 8 October 1996.

Chapter 11 of Army Regulation 135-178 provides that on expiration of term of service a soldier will be discharged. Chapter 12 of the regulation provides for the separation of soldiers when it has been determined that they are no longer qualified for retention by reason of medical unfitness in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501.

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 evidence in this case does not support his contention that there was an error or injustice in his discharge of 8 October 1996 based on the expiration of his term of service. There is no evidence of record, or evidence provided by the applicant, that he was found medically unfit for retention by military medical authorities in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501.

2. The record is also absent of evidence that the applicant completed a Medical Evaluation or Physical Evaluation Board.

3. The fact that the VA and the SSA, in their discretion, have awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of those agencies. It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Department of the Army purposes.






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

__RO___ __TP___ ___RD___ DENY APPLICATION




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



INDEX

CASE ID AR2002072981
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20030424
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 108.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000265C070208

    Original file (20040000265C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests physical disability retirement with a 100 percent disability rating. In his 19 February 2004 letter to the Army Chief of Staff the applicant states that he should be granted a 100 percent service connected disability rating effective 1 June 1994, the date he was released from active duty. His service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040005762C070208

    Original file (040005762C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: a. In response to the claim that the USAPDA had no authority to review the PEB findings, and that the USAPDA had changed the PEB’s 3 June 2003 findings, the USAPDA stated it had a quality review program mandated by the Department of Defense, that the 8 August 2003 return of the case to the PEB was not a change of the PEB findings, but only a return for the PEB to consider additional factors, and that the PEB was free to reach any decision they thought appropriate. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055594C070420

    Original file (2001055594C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he received an additional qualifying year for retirement, and that he be given a disability retirement with a disability rating of 40 percent. APPLICANT STATES : That he was honorably discharged from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) with only one year left to obtain his 20 year retirement. There is no basis to grant the applicant's request for any additional qualifying years of service in order to become eligible for retired pay.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0000980

    Original file (0000980.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Air Force Reserve, was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) when her disability case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) in December 1999, for a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. Counsel provided a statement supporting the applicant’s requests to change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus years; change the AF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00937

    Original file (BC-2002-00937.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    This exam is required for all students being considered for elimination to ensure students are “medically qualified at the time of any non-medical disenrollment.” As a result, the applicant was to be reinstated into training following a Medical Hold status to resolve the medical issue. At the time of her elimination, there was a policy allowing up to 6 months in Medical Hold before students would be considered for elimination. Then following the 3-month Medical Hold, the Flight Surgeon...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088400C070403

    Original file (2003088400C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Paragraph 3-3 states that soldiers with conditions listed in this chapter who do not meet the required medical standards will be evaluated by an MEB and will be referred to a PEB with certain caveats including: Reserve component soldiers not on active duty, whose medical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012799C070206

    Original file (20050012799C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Physicians were responsible for referring Soldiers with medical conditions to an MEB. It also states that physicians are responsible for referring Soldiers with conditions listed in this chapter to an MEB. If the medical evaluation board determines the Soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the Soldier to a physical evaluation board.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062569C070421

    Original file (2001062569C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He had requested a Fitness for Duty Evaluation and a PEB. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. The Counseling Guide for RC Members with Nonduty Related Conditions who Request a PEB states that RC members should only request referral to the PEB if they believe they can perform their duties despite their medical condition.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016586

    Original file (20100016586.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090016072 on 4 May 2010. The applicant reenlisted in the USAR for 3 years on 11 June 1994; this term of enlistment carried him through 10 June 1997 when he would have been required to reenlist in order to continue to serve. He failed to take action to execute a reenlistment and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091071C070212

    Original file (2003091071C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides two letters of explanation to her Senator, dated 24 April 2003 and 27 March 2003; a letter, dated 9 January 1999, from the Command Surgeon, 88th Regional Support Command, Fort Snelling, Minnesota; a physical examination, dated 7 February 1998; a memorandum for Notification of Medical Unfitness for Retention; a memorandum for Medical Duty Review Board Recommendations, dated 9 March 1995; a Defense Finance and Accounting Service Military Leave and Earnings Statement,...