| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member |
2. The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his military records by showing he was placed on the retired list due to physical disability or, in the alternative, to have his records corrected to show that he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).
3. The applicant submits a letter dated 2 August 2002. In that letter he contends that it is physically impossible to grow a brain tumor the size of a naval orange in the 30 hours he had been out of the Army. He implies that the Army should take responsibility for his brain tumor since it had to have its inception while he was on active duty. He outlines the hardships he has experienced because of his brain tumor, including the possibility of both he and his parents declaring bankruptcy due to the over $200,000.00 medical bill he incurred to have the tumor removed.
4. The Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) of the Board’s 25 July 2002 review of the case (AR2002075698) is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.
5. The applicant’s submission is new argument that requires Board consideration.
6. Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-7, Retaining soldiers on active duty after scheduled non-disability retirement or discharge date, states that a soldier whose normal scheduled date of non-disability retirement or separation occurs during the course of hospitalization or disability evaluation may, with his or her consent, be retained in the service until he or she has attained maximum hospitalization benefits and completion of disability evaluation if otherwise eligible for referral into the disability system.
7. Army Regulation 600-8-1, paragraph 41-8 states, that the term Existing Prior to Service (EPTS) is added to a medical diagnosis when there is substantial evidence that the disease or injury, or underlying condition, existed before military service, or it happened between periods of active service. Included in this category are chronic diseases with an incubation period that clearly precludes a finding that it started during short tours of authorized training or duty. If an EPTS condition was aggravated by military service, the finding will be in line of duty. If an EPTS condition is not aggravated by military service, the finding will be not in line of duty, not due to own misconduct, EPTS. Specific findings of natural progress of the pre-existing injury or disease based on well established medical principles alone are enough to overcome the presumption of service aggravation. A member of the Army is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition on entering active service or authorized training. To overcome this, it must be shown by substantial evidence that the injury or disease, or condition causing it, was sustained or contracted while neither on active duty nor in authorized training.
8. Army Regulation 40-3, Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Care, paragraph
15-1a, provides for civilian medical care for members of the Army when authorized by the Army Medical Treatment Facility with geographic responsibility for the soldier.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board accepts that the applicant's brain tumor had its inception while he was on active duty. If he had been diagnosed as having a brain tumor of that size 30 hours after he had entered active duty, the tumor would be considered EPTS. As such, it is only fair and equitable to apply EPTS standards to personnel who are recently separated from active duty.
2. If the applicant had been diagnosed as having the brain tumor while he was still on active duty, he would have been given the option to remain on active duty in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40. There is no question that the applicant would have availed himself of that option if he had been given the opportunity.
3. It is not fair or equitable to impoverish the applicant and his parents for a medical condition which was incurred in line of duty. Since the applicant was physically fit at the time of his separation, as noted in the Board's prior consideration, the only reasonable remedy would be to correct the applicant's records to show that his tumor was detected while he was still on active duty, show that he was offered and elected to be retained on active duty, void his discharge, show that he has been retained on active duty, pay him back pay and allowances from the date of his separation, and pay his medical bills in accordance with applicable Army regulations pertaining to the civilian hospitalization of active duty personnel.
4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would rectify an injustice.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:
a. showing that the individual concerned was diagnosed as having a brain tumor prior to the expiration of his term of service;
b. showing that he was offered and accepted retention on active duty until he attained maximum hospitalization benefits and completion of disability evaluation if otherwise eligible for referral into the disability system;
c. showing that the action separating him from active duty on 6 June 2002 is void and of no force or effect;
d. showing that he has remained on active duty continuously without any breaks in active service;
e. paying to him his military pay and allowances as a result of this correction;
f. paying his medical bills in accordance with Army Regulation 40-3, paragraph 15-1a;
g. immediately issuing orders assigning him to the appropriate command or facility for medical evaluation to determine whether his current medical condition would warrant medically boarding him; and
h. medically boarding him or terminating the extension on active duty this correction has provided, as appropriate.
BOARD VOTE:
__eja___ ___slp___ ___fne___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_________Fred N. Eichorn___
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2002076842 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021022 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072374C070403
The applicant states that, because of the medical condition that was discovered while he was on active duty, he should have been referred to a medical evaluation board (MEB). Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a Regular member (or Reserve Component member on active duty over 30...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9310741
: The applicant's military personnel and medical records show:While a cadet at West Point Military Academy, the applicant was conservatively treated for complaints of increasing low back pain. The applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant and entered on active duty on 25 May 1988. He also cited examples of his level of physical fitness before and after his surgery while he was a cadet at West Point Military Academy, and how he injured his back when he was the officer in charge of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089358C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, that his Line of Duty (LOD) determination be changed from LOD – No, Not Due to Own Misconduct to LOD – Yes, Not Due to Own Misconduct. Doctor I___ stated that, with all due respect to Doctor H___ (identity unknown, but most likely the doctor whose opinion caused the reviewing authority to change the LOD investigation findings to Not in Line of Duty), he retained an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the applicant's activity during his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019625
The applicant states: * it was determined without any supporting evidence that his medical disqualification existed prior to service * he was given no medical treatment * his diagnosed osteomyelitis should be found to have been incurred in or aggravated by service * the conclusions of the medical evaluation board (MEB) that his osteomyelitis was not incurred in or aggravated by service only 8 months after being medically examined for induction and 6 months after training was erroneous * the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072152C070403
The applicant’s commander stated that his injury was in line of duty. The evidence also shows that the applicant’s commander, on 5 November 1994, determined that the applicant’s injury was in line of duty, and that he was transported to the Fairview Ridges Hospital emergency room. The applicant may yet want to submit a claim to his commander for his expenses, based on the determination made by this Board to correct the 14 August 1995 finding on the line of duty investigation to “in line of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03762
The Eight-Year Rule states a disabling condition will be found to be in the line of duty, even though the condition EPTS, if the member has at least eight years of service, and the member was on active duty orders specifying a period of 30 days at the time the condition became unfitting, as subsequently determined by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant has over eight years of active duty, and therefore, his disability should have been found to be in the LOD as a matter of law....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016919
Counsel requests the applicant be medically retired from active duty with a disability rating of not less the 30 percent. Counsel states the formal physical evaluation board (PEB) failed to provide the applicant and counsel adequate time to prepare for the formal hearing. The formal PEB corrected the informal PEB by separating the two muscle groups and rating each as 10 percent disabling.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009187C070208
Her present condition was further aggravated by the medical retention on active duty for 1 1/2 years after treatment. The evidence of record shows the applicant was given a MEB and PEB and diagnosed with AVM, a congenital condition. As such, her medical problems resulting from hemorrhaging and treatment lead the PEB to determine that the applicant had the condition prior to her entry on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058582C070421
The resultant pressure of the internal tissue through the gap in the abdominal wall in the groin area is called an inguinal hernia. The NGB denied the applicant’s appeal, stating that a review of the medical records by the NGB Chief Surgeon determined that the applicant’s hernia was a preexisting condition which was probably related to colectomy surgery the applicant underwent in 1986. The OTSG stated that based on the available records, none of the applicant’s subsequent hernias were the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607088C070209
Army Regulation 635-40, the regulation which governs PEBs, paragraph 4-19b, states that a PEB may decide that a soldiers physical defect was EPTS, but must then determine whether the condition was aggravated by military service. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability, provides for the medical retirement and for the discharge for physical unfitness, with severance pay, of soldiers who incur a physical disability in the line of duty while serving...