Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03092430C070212
Original file (03092430C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied




RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 09 MARCH 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003092430


         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. Deborah L. Brantley Senior Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler Chairperson
Ms. Shirley L. Powell Member
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:


1. The applicant requests, in effect, that her separation document be corrected to show that she completed 20 years, 7 months, and 2 days of active Federal service.

2. The applicant states that as a result of a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), conducted in April 2000, she was “forced” to retire with 19 years, 4 months, and 29 days of service when her original ETS (Expiration Term of Service) date was 2 October 2001.

3. The applicant provides a copy of the front pages of her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and PEB, a copy of her retirement orders, a copy of her Enlisted Record Brief reflecting her ETS date, and a copy of her separation document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. Information available to the Board indicates that the applicant entered active duty in March 1981 and served continuously until her retirement by reason of physical disability on 31 July 2000. She held a primary specialty of 92G (Food Service Specialist) and a secondary specialty of 71L (Administrative Specialist). She was promoted to pay grade E-7 in June 1993. Her Enlisted Record Brief confirms that her scheduled ETS date was 2 October 2001.

2. In August 1999 the applicant was issued a permanent physical (P-3 and L-3) profile for knee pain and a heart condition. The profile recommended that she avoid “prolonged exposure [to] physical, emotionally, stressful situations.”

3. An October 1999 statement from her unit commander indicated that the applicant had been “diagnosed with Pulmonary Supraventricular Tachycardia (PSVT)” in November 1997 and underwent surgery for the condition in January and March 1998. She noted that the applicant’s heart condition prohibited her from performing at maximum effort and is exacerbated by physical and emotional stress. The commander noted that the applicant was performing duties in her secondary specialty and indicated that the applicant should be “retained in the United States Army” and that her secondary specialty be reclassified as her primary specialty.

4. On 18 November 1999 the applicant appeared before a MOS/Medical Retention Board (MMRB). During the board the applicant expressed a strong





desire to be reclassified and her chain of command supported that reclassification. The MMRB concluded, however, that the applicant’s condition prevented deployment in any specialty and recommended she be referred for disability processing.

5. On 22 February 2000 the applicant underwent a MEB. The MEB concluded that the applicant suffered from Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachytardia which was unresponsive to ablation or medication, and that the condition was worsened by stress. It also noted that she suffered from bilateral degenerative joint disease in his knees. The MEB recommended that the applicant be referred to a PEB. The applicant indicated, by her signature on the MEB proceedings, that she did not desire to remain on active duty and that she concurred with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.

6. An informal PEB concluded, on 12 April 2000, that the applicant’s heart and knee conditions rendered her physically unfit and recommended that she be retired by reason of physical disability with a combined disability rating of 40 percent. The applicant indicated, by her signature on the PEB proceedings, that she concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived her right to a formal hearing.

7. A counseling checklist, authenticated by the applicant on 25 April 2000, indicated that she had been counseled regarding the procedures for requesting continuance on active duty, as well as the procedures for appealing both the MEB and PEB findings and recommendations.

8. The PEB proceedings were approved and on 31 July 2000 the applicant was retired by reason of physical disability in pay grade E-7. She had completed
19 years, 4 months, and 29 days of active Federal service at the time of her retirement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. Contrary to the applicant’s contentions, evidence available to the Board indicates that she was an active participant in her disability processing and concurred with findings and recommendations of both the MEB and the PEB. She also acknowledged that she had been counseled regarding procedures for requesting continuation on active duty if she so desired. Although she may have had less than 15 months until her scheduled ETS date, there is no evidence she took any action to request continuation on active duty in lieu of retirement by reason of physical disability. There is no evidence that she was “forced” to retire as she contends.



2. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ SAC __ __ SLP __ ___ BJE _ DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





                  ___Samuel A. Crumpler___
                  CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID AR2003092430
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20040309
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. 108.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02464

    Original file (BC-2003-02464.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s medical records reveal the following: A narrative summary prepared for an Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) in January 2000, indicated the applicant was diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with poor control on medical therapy, depression - stable by history. She would still be an active duty member of the Air Force had she not been medically discharged for a condition (supraventricular tachycardia) she was told was too severe to remain on active duty and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053852C070420

    Original file (2001053852C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The USAPDA stated that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of unfit, and that the applicant had experienced back pain and sufficiently performed duties since 1996 with no significant worsening of his pain. It stated that his medical condition had been present since 1996, that his condition had been considered mild with little change, and that he had continued to perform his duties. He stated that his condition was not mild, and that his physical activities have been...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003748

    Original file (20070003748.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB stated that based on a review of the objective medical evidence of record, it found the applicant's medical and physical impairment prevented reasonable performance of duties required by his grade and MOS. The PEB found that his medical and physical impairment prevented reasonable performance of duties required by grade and MOS. The PEB concurred with the MEB's results and recommend separation with severance pay.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021424

    Original file (20100021424.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record shows the applicant sustained medical conditions related to her knees and hand that rendered her physically unfit. There is no evidence the applicant was unfit because of low back pain at the time she was placed on the TDRL. There is no evidence the applicant had an unfitting medical condition related to back pain when she was placed on the TDRL or when she was removed from the TDRL.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018489

    Original file (20070018489.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of her Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) findings to show that her medical condition was aggravated by military service and, in effect, medical retirement. The applicant’s doctor performed a meta-analysis of her medical records and concluded that her condition was exacerbated by her service; b. before a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) can rule that a Soldier’s permanent disability was not caused by military service, the MEB must make specific conclusions based...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018219

    Original file (20080018219.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests removal of the word "Disability" from item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The evidence of record shows the applicant suffered from a medical condition - chronic left ankle pain - that rendered her unable to satisfactorily perform the duties of her grade and military occupational specialty. The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s narrative reason for separation was assigned based...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052317C070420

    Original file (2001052317C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    She received a 50 percent disability rating due to a total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (dysmenorrhea), a 10 percent disability rating for bilateral patellofemoral syndrome, and a 10 percent disability rating for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with tendonitis. Section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years active service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent. DISCUSSION : Considering all the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003763

    Original file (20140003763.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides copies of the following: * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) * NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) * Memorandum, Request for Medical Determination Review Board (MDRB) * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) * four DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile) * DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) * LOD determination memorandum * Non-Duty Related...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006630

    Original file (20140006630.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A Standard Form 507 (Medical Record) indicates the Physical Review Board determined she was qualified for retention in the USAR in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3 and her PULHES was 211111. At the time of her discharge from active duty due to parenthood, her records were scheduled to go before a medical evaluation performance board. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020001

    Original file (20140020001.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She stated that "she had come into the service with the condition." Thus, if evidence establishes that the Soldier adequately performed the normal duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating until the time of referral for physical evaluation, the Soldier might be considered fit for duty, even though medical evidence indicates the Soldier's physical ability to perform such duties may be questionable. In regards to her knee pain, the evidence of record shows that the applicant...