| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member | |
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by showing that he continued on active duty until he reached retirement eligibility.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), Chapter 6, paragraph 6-5(b), he should have been counseled/advised on his rights as a soldier with more than twenty years. He also contends that the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO) failed to follow these provisions and was negligent in carrying out those responsibilities.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the Memorandum of Consideration prepared to reflect the consideration of Docket Number AR2001053866 by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 18 October 2001.
On 28 May 2002, a request for reconsideration was reviewed by the ABCMR. The staff determined that the applicant had not provided any new evidence and his request with closed without action.
The applicant's contentions that under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, Chapter 6, paragraph 6-5(b), he should have been counseled/advised on his rights as a soldier with more than twenty years and that the PEBLO failed to follow these provisions and was negligent in carrying out those responsibilities are new argument and will be considered by the Board.
On 15 April 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged with 18 years,
1 month and 10 days of total active service.
Item 15 on the applicant's Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated
28 January 1992, states that the patient does not desire to continue on active duty under Army Regulation 635-40. The applicant authenticated this action on 10 February 1992.
The applicant's service personnel records contain a PEBLO Counseling Checklist/Statement. Section III (Counseling) on this statement has a check mark next to the entry, "Informed the soldier of criteria and procedures for requesting continuance on active duty or in the Active Reserve." Section IV (Acknowledgement) shows the applicant acknowledged that he was counseled on the above marked items as they pertained to his disability evaluation on
24 February 1992.
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), Chapter 6 (Continuance of Disabled Personnel on Active Duty), paragraph 6-5(b) (Soldiers with 18 years) states that when a soldier with
18 years but less than 20 years of active service is referred to a Physical Evaluation Board for further processing and elects not to submit a request for continuation on active duty, such election will be in writing and attached to the Medical Evaluation Board proceeding. If the soldier does not indicate in writing his or her desire not to request continuation on active duty, the PEBLO will include a signed certificate stating that the soldier has been counseled and elects not to submit an election in writing.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
Army Regulation 15-185 provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
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 considered the applicant's contention that he should have been counseled/advised on his rights as a soldier with more than twenty years. However, the applicant was honorably discharged with 18 years, 1 month and
10 days of total active service, not more than twenty years.
2. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, Chapter 6, paragraph 6-5(b), the PEBLO failed to follow these provisions and was negligent in carrying out those responsibilities.
3. Item 15 on the applicant's Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated
28 January 1992, states that the patient does not desire to continue on active duty under Army Regulation 635-40. The applicant authenticated this action on 10 February 1992.
4. Evidence of record also shows the applicant acknowledged that he was counseled on the criteria and procedures for requesting continuance on active duty by his PEBLO on 24 February 1992.
5. After review of all the evidence in this case and the latest arguments, the Board determined that the applicant has presented no argument or evidence which is sufficient to reverse the previous decision rendered by the ABCMR in AR2001053866 on 18 October 2001.
6. 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.
7. 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
RVO____ TLP____ RD______ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2002081305 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | Yes |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030424 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 136.0100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085083C070212
The applicant's records contain a DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) which shows that a PEB convened on 26 May 1992 to consider the applicant's case. Evidence of record shows the following. d. The DVA subsequently rated the applicant's migraine headaches under the VASRD and also found them 10 percent disabling, not 30 percent as the applicant now contends.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074992C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS :Reconsideration of her earlier appeal to correct her military records by granting her a physical disability retirement with a 60 percent disability rating. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that the Board based it original decision on the following three points: that she elected to stay on active duty; that she could perform her duties as a Family Physician while on active duty; and that she elected to remain in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) to perform Family...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059557C070421
Counsel presents the applicant’s request for reconsideration and new requests for relief, evidence contentions, and conclusions in a five-page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) with no attachments. In the request for reconsideration, counsel essentially is seeking the same relief considered in part by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR1999032387, specifically to correct his records by restoring him [the applicant] to active duty in pay grade E-6 or at least...
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 | CY2012 | 20120010278
A Soldier who is physically unqualified for further military service has no inherent or vested right to continuation; (2) paragraph 6-3 that COAD applies to officers on the active duty list, Regular Army enlisted Soldiers, and Soldiers in the AGR requesting continuation as AGR; (3) paragraph 6-6 that final PDES evaluation may be waived for retirement for length of service. The applicant's reconsideration request that her record be corrected to show 20 years of active duty service under COAD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000638C070208
The board determined that the applicant did wrongfully use marijuana, and recommended that he be discharged from the Illinois Army National Guard for misconduct with a General Discharge, with the stipulation that his discharge be suspended as the convening authority may determine. On 26 June 1995 the applicant appealed to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and also requesting that he be reinstated [in the Army National Guard]. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054176C070420
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR1999032774) on 1 August 2000. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055248C070420
The VA’s 12 January 1994 decision to grant service connection for schizophrenia was available for this Board’s original consideration of the case. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted. The applicant has submitted no evidence to show that he was manifesting symptoms of, had a diagnosis of, or was treated for any physical, mental or psychological condition that would have warranted referral for a medical evaluation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605006C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his previous request to increase his Army disability rating. He contends that the VA decision and diagnosis should be used as evidence to increase his Army disability. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015351
The applicant's military service records contain a copy of his DD Form 214, with an effective date of 19 March 2000. The applicant and his Counsel contend, in effect, that in the interest of justice the ABCMR should reconsider its original decision and correct the applicant's military service records to show that he completed 20 years net active service The bases of the request is their contention that the applicant forfeited 20 days PTDY in exchange for creditable active duty service, he...