| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his separation document be corrected to show that he was discharged due to a medical condition which had its inception while he was on active duty.
APPLICANT STATES: He never had kidney or bladder problems before he entered on active duty. However, he had to have his kidney removed after he was discharged.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military personnel records could not be located and are presumed to have been destroyed in the fire at the records repository at St. Louis, Missouri, in 1973. However, the Board was provided his military medical records, including a copy of his separation document, which show:
He was inducted and entered on active duty on 24 April 1951.
On 8 June 1951, the applicant was admitted to a military hospital, “ . . . with a history of terminal, gross hematuria [the presence of blood or blood cells in the urine] present intermittently for the past 1-2 months . . .”
The applicant continued to receive medical treatment, both inpatient and outpatient, and was given a final diagnosis of hydronephrosis (cystic distension of the kidney caused by the accumulation of urine in the renal pelvis as a result of obstruction to outflow and accompanied by atrophy of the kidney structure and cyst formation), left, secondary to obstruction at uretero-pelvic junction, and prostatitis (inflammation of the prostate gland), chronic, moderate.
In an evaluation dated 1 October 1951 it was stated “In view of the fact this patient has been rather obstrepirous since being told he has hydronephrosis and apparently assigning more symptoms to this situation than usually found, it is felt he would probably be of little value to the service post-operatively following a plastic repair of the left hydronephrosis, consequently he will be separated from the service rather than being subjected to surgical correction of a defect known to exist prior to induction.”
Accordingly, the applicant was honorably discharged on 23 October 1951 due to disability existing prior to entry on active duty and not aggravated by military service.
Army Regulation 600-8-1, paragraph 41-8 states, in pertinent part, that if an Existing Prior To Service (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 (NLD-NDOM) 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.
The Court of Claims and the Comptroller General of the United States have held that short periods of active duty do not give rise to the presumption of the cause of an illness or disease.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant was first treated for the symptoms of his illnesses on 8 June 1951. At that time he reported having those symptoms intermittently for 1 or 2 months. This would place the date the applicant started experiencing symptoms right at the date he entered active duty, if not earlier.
2. Illnesses such as those suffered by the applicant do not appear overnight. They take a certain amount of time before they manifest symptoms. As such, even though the applicant may not have experienced any symptoms prior to his entry on active duty, that would not imply that he did not have the condition prior to his entry on active duty.
3. The physicians treating the applicant determined that his illnesses existed prior to his entry on active duty. The applicant has not submitted any evidence or argument which would show that determination was in error.
4. 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
__lls____ ___wdp __ ___bje__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077128 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021217 |
| 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. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02360
Furthermore, the Board’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections, where appropriate. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The VA examiner noted reports of psychiatric...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067848C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The prior decision does not mention a review of the service medical records that are currently associated with the applicant's file, therefore, the staff of the Board has determined that these records constitute new evidence requiring referral of this case for Board review. Administrative decisions have...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086517C070212
She also requests that she receive back retirement pay from the date of her separation and that the Line of Duty (LOD) investigation, dated 26 October 1984, be incorporated in her military records. Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent. The Board considered the applicant's request that the LOD investigation, dated 26 October 1984, be...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00798
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the recurrent nephrolithiasis and temporomandibular joint disorder conditions as unfitting, rated 20% and 0%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and SECNAVINST 1850.4E. After a VA dental rating examination was completed in January 2004, the rating was increased to 10% effective 30 September 2003 based on the maximal inter-incisal range of 36mm documented on that examination. Service Treatment Record
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002041C070205
The applicant's treating cardiologist rendered the medical opinion for the MEB/PEB that the applicant's current heart disability was either caused or aggravated by military service. Counsel states that the Board, upon review, would find no medical basis for the EPTS determination, only the judgment of the President of the Board without consideration to medical fact or medical specialist opinion. The PEB found the applicant unfit due to an EPTS condition and recommended separation from the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050000810C070206
He also indicated that his recruiter asked him about his medical condition and he had informed him that he did not have any medical condition. There is no evidence, and the applicant submitted none, to support his allegation that the Army sent him to Albany, New York, to reenlist; that he was scheduled to take a mini medical examination but was later told he had to undergo a full physical examination and obtain a waiver from the SGA; that a request for waiver was submitted ; that he waited...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000810C070206
He also indicated that his recruiter asked him about his medical condition and he had informed him that he did not have any medical condition. There is no evidence, and the applicant submitted none, to support his allegation that the Army sent him to Albany, New York, to reenlist; that he was scheduled to take a mini medical examination but was later told he had to undergo a full physical examination and obtain a waiver from the SGA; that a request for waiver was submitted ; that he waited...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000810C070206
The applicant states that he was discharged on 30 June 2003 from active duty (AD) with a medical discharge for glomerulonephritis, a kidney disease. He also indicated that his recruiter asked him about his medical condition and he had informed him that he did not have any medical condition. The evidence shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5, for disability, EPTS- Medical Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002399
The applicant provides a: * 4 February 2010 letter from a doctor in the Boston Medical Center stating the applicant did not have any kidney stones that day * 28 December 2011 Boston University Urology Department letter stating the applicant was seen on 4 February 2010 and had no kidney stones * page 10 of enlistment documents showing his enlistment included an enlistment bonus, SLRP, and the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) * 5 January 2012 Clinical Record showing a medical waiver had been...