| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ernest W. Lutz | Member | |
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge due to being medically disqualified under enlistment medical standards, be corrected to a retirement due to physical unfitness.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was 17 years old at the time of enlistment and had to have his parents, as legal guardians, sign for him to enlist. When he enlisted, the military became his legal guardian. The military let him down in this capacity. When he was in basic combat training, he was subjected to tear gas. Shortly thereafter, he began having problems with his eyes. When he was treated by military physicians for his eye problems, the physicians gave him steroid injections in his eyes. Ten days after his enlistment into the Regular Army, they told him he was being discharged. He couldn’t read the forms he signed at that time since he couldn’t see well enough to read them. He was not appointed legal counsel to advise him of his rights anytime during this process, and he did not realize that he would lose his rights as a veteran if he accepted the discharge. He has been told that his military medical records have been lost, but the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are able to find documents which are detrimental to his case. One example is a statement allegedly signed by him saying that he had his eye condition before entering the Army. He contends that this is a boldface lie. He did not have any eye condition before entering the Army, and he did not sign any statement saying that he did. When he was being processed for enlistment, he took his written examinations without any trouble. When he entered active duty with the Army, he passed his shooting qualification tests with flying colors. So it stands to reason that his condition either was caused by, or was aggravated by, his military service, which warrants a medical retirement.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 November 1969. On 18 November 1969, he signed a form stating “I request discharge from the service . . . as I feel that at the time of my induction into the service, I did not meet the applicable medical fitness standards for induction in effect at that time.” The signature on that form appears to be the same signature used by the applicant on his enlistment documents.
The applicant’s military medical records are not contained in his military personnel records jacket.
On 22 December 1969, the applicant was honorably discharged due to his not meeting medical fitness standards at the time of enlistment.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-9, in effect at the time, stated that soldiers who entered on active duty with a medical condition that was disqualifying under the procurement (enlistment) medical fitness standards, but not disqualifying under retention standards, could either submit a request for discharge or sign a statement saying that they wanted to complete their enlistment or induction.
Army Regulation 600-8-1, then in effect, paragraph 41-8 stated, in pertinent part, that if an Existing Prior to Service (EPTS) condition was aggravated by military service, the finding would be “in line of duty”. If an EPTS condition was not aggravated by military service, the finding would be “not in line of duty - not due to own misconduct”. Specific findings of natural progress of the pre-existing injury or disease based on well established medical principles alone, were enough to overcome the presumption of service aggravation.
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 line of duty disability rated at less than 30 percent. Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a line of duty disability rated at least 30 percent.
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. Neither the applicant’s enlistment physical examination, nor the medical records which formed the basis of his discharge, are contained in his MPRJ. Without these documents, it is impossible to ascertain exactly what occurred in the applicant’s case. With the existing documentation, there is no indication of even what medical condition formed the basis of the applicant’s discharge.
2. While the applicant states that he did not sign the statement indicating that his disqualifying medical condition existed at the time of his enlistment, the signature on that document matches up with his signature on other documents in his records. Without evidence to the contrary, the Board must accept this as the applicant’s signature.
3. The applicant’s contention that he was not afforded proper counseling and legal representation, at a time when he was a minor under the age of 18, has been considered by the Board. The Board has weighed this statement against the fact that the applicant, by his own statement, was told he was going to be discharged for medical disqualification on the 10th day of his active duty. Absent a documented trauma, a finding of medical disqualification this early in his enlistment can only be viewed as a soldier who had the medically disqualifying condition at the time of his enlistment. The applicant then had the option of electing to remain on active duty or to be discharged. He elected to be discharged.
4. Since the applicant signed a statement attesting that he had a medically disqualifying condition which existed at the time of his enlistment, and he elected to be discharged, he was properly discharged.
5. 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
__clg____ __ewl____ ____lcb_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088413 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031030 |
| 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. | 108.03 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005806
The applicant contends the Board made its decision based on inaccurate information: * his eye examination was normal for his entrance examination and abnormal for his separation examination * he denies that he requested to be discharged from the military * he did not waive his right to have his case considered by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) * he did not concur with the Medical Evaluation Boards (MEBs) findings and recommendations * his medical condition did not exist prior to service...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03941
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant had an existing prior to service (EPTS) eye condition that was waived at the time of his enlistment and he completed his four-year term of service receiving an honorable discharge. His eye condition was noted in his enlistment, periodic, and separation medical examinations, and there was no evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013367
The evidence of record further shows that on 31 July 2007 the applicant was issued a permanent profile for a ruptured globe in the right eye. The evidence of record shows the only reference to the applicant appearing before a medical board occurred in February 2007, but the permanent profile he received in July 2007 concerning the same issue indicated that no medical board was needed. The evidence further shows that the applicant continued to perform his military duties until he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070386C070402
The applicant requests, in effect, that the finding that his coronary artery disease (CAD), resulting in a cardio catherization while he was on full time training duty, was not in line of duty, existed prior to service, be corrected to a finding that it was in line of duty (LOD). On 14 September 1987 a formal line of duty investigation was completed on the applicant’s coronary artery disease and the treatment he received to diagnose and treat that condition. In that regard, there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091357C070212
Army Regulation 600-8-1, the regulation which prescribes the policy and procedures for conducting LODIs, 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. Without evidence to show that he actually contracted actinic keratosis while on that period of active duty, his LODI was properly approved as NLD-NDOM. Also not germane to the outcome of this case is the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018217C070206
His retinitis pigmentosa was determined to be congenital, existing prior to his entrance onto active duty with no aggravation by his military service. The opinion states the applicant's disability processing was proper and the preponderance of evidence did not support the applicant's request. Preponderance of evidence is defined as that degree of proof necessary to fully satisfy the board members that there is greater than a 50% probability that the disease was neither incurred during nor...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002586
c. "I disagree with these proceedings because my condition did not exist prior to service (specified medical evidence is attached) and request my case be returned to the medical approving authority for reconsideration." Extension of time beyond 3 working days may be granted by the unit commander for reasonable delays (for example, to consult with legal counsel). It is not uncommon for a medical condition to be found acceptable upon enlistment, yet later form the basis for an EPTS medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056299C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That a line of duty determination be changed from "NOT IN LINE OF DUTY-NOT DUE TO OWN MISCONDUCT-EPTS-NO AGGRAVATION" to "IN LINE OF DUTY-EPTS [Existed Prior to Service]-AGGRAVATION." A line of duty investigation was conducted on 4 June 1999 and determined that the applicant injured himself while lifting the heavy ballistic shield. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018740
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-9 in effect at the time, stated individuals who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for induction or initial enlistment would be discharged when a medical board established that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 4 months of the member's initial entrance on active duty or active duty for training and...