| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Conrad V. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable or changed to show that he was separated by reason of physical disability.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that in June 1980, while attending basic training, he attempted to complete the obstacle course and was injured. He was ordered to jump and tore a ligament in his left leg plus damage to his left medial meniscus (dislocation of the internal cartilage knee joint). He was released from Fort Dix, New Jersey with a medical profile that was extended every 90 days; however, he was not being paid and later received one lump sum in 1981.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant's records contain a copy of his entrance examination, dated 8 May 1980, which was prepared prior to his entrance on active duty, and shows that he was qualified for enlistment with a 111111 physical profile. The doctor also notes that the applicant had injured his left knee 5 days prior to the examination and was experiencing pain.
He enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 22 May 1980, for a period of 6 years.
On 11 August 1980, the hospital adjutant prepared a letter to the applicant's commander which stated that the applicant injured himself while on active duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey. He suffered a torn medial meniscus of his left knee while participating in field training with his unit on 18 July 1980. He was evaluated by medical authorities, received a profile, and had not recovered sufficiently to return to regular duty without limitations. He requested that the applicant continue to receive pay and allowances until 11 November 1980, the end of his temporary profile.
The applicant's records contain a copy of a DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition -Physical Profile Record), dated 11 August 1980, which shows that he was issued a temporary profile of 113111 for internal derangement (disorder) left knee. He was returned to his unit for duty and was found qualified for duty with temporary limitations. His assignment limitations consisted of no crawling, stooping, running or jumping, no prolonged standing or marching, and no strenuous physical activity.
On 20 April 1981, he was issued another temporary profile of 113111 for possible cartilage damage to his left knee. He was returned to duty and was found qualified for duty with temporary limitations. The doctor did not recommend the applicant for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or any form of physical disability processing.
On 20 April 1981, the applicant was administered a physical examination and was found qualified for retention in the USAR.
On 10 September 1982, orders were published releasing the applicant from his troop program unit (TPU) for unsatisfactory participation and was assigned to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) effect 11 September 1982.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's release are not present in the available records.
He continued to serve in the Control Group until he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 12 July 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175, for misconduct.
Army Regulation 140-10, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the assignment, attachment, detail, and transfer of USAR soldiers. Chapter 4 of the regulation governs transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). Section I pertains to unsatisfactory participants. It states, in pertinent part, that TPU enlisted members who fail to satisfactorily participate may be transferred to the IRR, or to a control group to complete their statutory or contractual military service obligation (MSO). Transfer will be without board action or characterization of service.
Chapter 7 of Army Regulation 135-178 establishes the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, patterns of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and related charges. Enlisted members are subject to separation when it is determined that the member is unqualified for further military service. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. If warranted by the member's overall record, a characterization of under honorable conditions may be furnished.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The applicant was issued two temporary profiles, returned to his unit for duty, and was found qualified for duty with a physical profile of 113111. He was listed with defects of internal derangement left knee and possible cartilage damage to his left knee. There is no evidence in the applicant's record to show that a MEB was considered or requested by competent medical authorities prior to his discharge.
3. After a review of the applicant's records, there is no evidence in the available records to show that further authorization was received from the appropriate authorities for continuous entitlement to pay and allowances that ceased on 11 November 1980.
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
__ca___ __cm____ __tk____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074703 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021012 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19860712 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . 135-175 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00433
The MEB referenced a visit to orthopedic surgery in December 2008, 8 months prior to separation, which diagnosed patellofemoral dysfunction and recommended medically separating the member if she did not improve with quadriceps rehabilitation at physical therapy (PT). The VA 40% rating indicated a significantly more limited extension based on the C&P exam interpretation of ‐30 degrees limited extension. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006526C070205
The conditions under consideration were: (a) Left Knee Condition, Degenerative Joint Disease; and (b) Chronic Pain. Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 12-1, states, in pertinent part, that reserve enlisted soldiers who are no longer qualified for retention by reason of medical unfitness under the standards of AR 40-501, chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation Including Retirement), will be discharged unless they are granted a waiver of the medical disqualification...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025566
However, contemporaneous medical evidence shows he had right knee problems (torn cartilage, right knee and recurrent dislocation, patella, right knee) prior to serving in Vietnam, and medical records from Camp Zama, Japan, show his right knee condition as EPTS. There is no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows he was wounded or injured as a result of hostile action in Vietnam. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support award of the Purple...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009926C070206
The applicant's records contain a copy of a SF Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 9 May 1991, that was prepared prior to his entrance on active duty (AD) in the Army National Guard (ARNG), which shows that he was medically qualified for enlistment with a 111111 physical profile. The evidence of record shows that the applicant sustained an injury to his left knee, at the age of 15, prior to his entry on AD, EPTS. His DD Form 3647 indicated that he was found unfit for enlistment...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00344
SEPARATION DATE: 20060405 Left Knee Condition . By the time of separation, the CI’s condition had improved such that he had a full ROM, albeit that knee pain persisted in spite of treatment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087266C070212
On 15 October 1995, while still on profile, counsel states that the applicant failed his alternate APFT. The evidence of record shows that the applicant failed a record APFT on 15 October 1995 and again on 3 August 1997. There is no evidence of record that the applicant ever passed a record APFT from the date of his appointment to the date of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008441C070208
The applicant also provides three Consultation Sheets, one dated 24 August 2004 and two dated 31 August 2004; a memorandum, Subject: Request for Recall for Surgery, dated 2 August 2004; a mental health evaluation dated 29 September 2003; copies of his service medical records; redeployment orders dated 25 September 2003; movement orders dated 25 March 2003; a copy of his DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record), Parts I and II; a retirement points statement; a leave and earnings statement...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00583
The MEB found in view of the “osteoarthritis degeneration of the left knee joint” as interfering with duty and forwarded “Bicompartmental Osteoarthritis of the Left Knee, Failed ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) Reconstruction in the Left Knee and Accompanying Anterolateral Rotatory Instability” to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on the NAVMED 6100/1. Based on the examination results, the examiner opined that the CI had Bicompartmental osteoarthritis of the left knee secondary to the ACL...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01749
However, I was only given a rating on my knees. Should the Board judge that any contested condition was most likely incompatible with specific duty requirements; a disability rating IAW the VASRD, and based on the degree of disability evidenced at separation, will be recommended.The Board further acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the significant impairment with which his service-connected conditions continue to burden him; but, must emphasize that the Disability Evaluation System...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02745
Left knee X-rayson 21 February 2007 were normal.At the MEB examination on 9 March 2007, 3 months prior to separation, the CI reported constant knee pain. Notes in the STR indicated the CI was advised the right knee pain was due to compensation for the left knee injury. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.