| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he has been an honorable and productive citizen since his discharge. He states that he worked for the state of Ohio for 21 ½ years before becoming disabled with diabetes. He states that he was exposed to Agent Orange and is now in need of medical assistance.
The applicant asks that in light of the errors on his DD Form 214 (Report of Discharge or Transfer) that were corrected as a result of his prior request in concert with his post-service good citizenship, that an additional review be conducted.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2002069825) on 4 June 2002.
In the applicant’s personal statement he requests that the Board review his videoconference testimony before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Board of Appeals on 12 December 2002. The applicant did not provide a copy this video for the Board’s review.
The applicant submits a medical report showing that he suffers from diabetes and a VA informational memorandum noting that veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and now have diabetes are eligible for benefits.
Personal statements attesting to the applicant’s character are submitted from the applicant’s former supervisor, his State Representative, his minister and a judge. These statements state that they have personally known the applicant for many years and have found him to be a devoted father and a good worker.
The applicant’s submissions are new evidence and/or argument that require Board consideration.
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.
The regulation 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 fact that the applicant’s records, especially his DD Form 214 had errors that were corrected by the Board’s previous decisional document does not show that there were improprieties in his discharge or the characterization of his service. While the applicant may have explained the reason for his 424 days of lost time to the VA, he has not provided the same information to this Board.
2. The Board notes the letters attesting to the applicant’s good character and post-service adjustment and conduct, and his personal statements about his post service employment and his development of a sense of responsibility; however, it does not find that these activities are not so exceptionally meritorious as to outweigh the offences that resulted in his discharge.
3. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
__JPL___ __AAO__ ___PHM _ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR200308439 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030923 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | upgrade |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03158
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03158 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 APR 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions , diabetes mellitus, coronary artery bypass, circulatory condition, glaucoma, and hypertension, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061926C070421
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2001054099) on 17 April 2001 . While PTSD was not recognized as a specific illness at the time of the applicant's separation from the service, the fact that an individual might not be fit for further military service because of psychosis, psychoneurosis, or neurological disorders was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014347
The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records to show he served in an active duty status during the period of 25 August 1965 through 28 September 1966 because he was exposed to Agent Orange. On 27 May 2009, the ABCMR denied the applicant's request to correct his DD Form 214 to show he had active military service from 25 August 1965 through 28 September 1966. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show he served...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-03249
The applicant was diagnosed with adult onset diabetes in 1983 and is receiving Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability compensation for diabetes mellitus based on provisions of Title 38 for presumptive service connection for Agent Orange exposure due to service in Vietnam. In an application dated 23 September 2003, the applicant requested award of the PH. As noted by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, while the applicant is suffering from a medical condition that is presumed under...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03382
Applicant discusses the DVA’s determination regarding his medical condition. In 2001, over 6 years following the applicant’s discharge, the DVA added Adult Onset Diabetes to the list of diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure for purposes of granting presumptive service connected disability compensation under Title 38. Title 38, Section 1116 is the law that provides for the DVA to grant service connected disability benefits for certain diseases that develop after discharge that may...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03210
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03210 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 Apr 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical condition, scleredema adultorum (lupus), be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC)...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01347
On 5 Feb 09, the DVA notified the applicant that Veterans who set foot in Vietnam during the Vietnam Conflict are considered to have been exposed to Agent Orange since it was widely used. The RVNCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served for six months in South Vietnam, during the period 1 Mar 61 to 28 Mar 73 or who served outside the geographical limits of the Republic of Vietnam and contributed direct combat support to the Republic of Vietnam and Armed...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00884
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00884 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service connected disabilities of high blood pressure and coronary artery disease (CAD) be re-evaluated under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program. As such, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00321
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His arteriosclerotic heart disease is a direct result of his diabetes caused by exposure to Agent Orange. His records reveals a medical examination, dated 8 Jul 02, which indicates his heart condition is secondary to his hypertension. His health problems relate directly to his diabetes.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088286C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely...