| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson | Analyst |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected by changing her uncharacterized discharge to a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she believes that the reason for her "discharge/separation" is incorrect and that she was denied medical assistance from the Veterans Administration Medical Center. She continues that she did not understand the terms of her separation because she was "a private, nervous" and that the meeting with her Company Commander was a "sign here" meeting.
In support of this application, the applicant provided a letter from her primary care physician and a copy of her DD Form 214.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in a Delayed Entry Program in the United States Army Reserve on 8 November 2002 for a period of eight years. She was discharged from the Delayed Entry Program and entered Active Duty on 27 February 2003.
On 12 March 2003, the applicant was presented to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD). This MEBD found that she had chronic chest pain, that she was medically unfit for duty, and that her condition existed prior to service.
On 12 March 2003, the applicant signed block 24 (I have been informed of the approved findings and recommendation of the board) of the DA Form 3847 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings) and placed her initials on the first block (I agree with the board's findings and recommendations).
In a 12 March 2003 memorandum, the applicant requested discharge for physical disability based on the findings of MEBD and stated that she was aware that the MEBD considered her unqualified for retention for military service because of a physical disability that was found to have existed prior to her entry into active service. The applicant also stated that she was aware that the MEBD found that the disability was neither incident to nor aggravated by her military service.
In addition, the 12 March 2003 memorandum states that the applicant elected not to exercise her right to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and that she understood that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would determine entitlement to VA benefits.
In a 13 March 2003 memorandum, the applicant's company commander was notified that the MEBD determined that the applicant was medically unfit for retention in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 and that the disqualifying condition existed prior to service.
In a 14 March 2003 memorandum, the applicant's company commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation based on chronic chest pain, a condition that existed prior to service.
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that she was discharged on 28 March 2003 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5.
Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of the applicant's DD Form 214 contains the entry "Disability, Existed Prior to Service- Medical Board."
Item 24 (Character of Service) of the applicant's DD Form 214 contains the entry "uncharacterized."
The applicant's physician states in a 2 April 2003 letter that the applicant has been his patient since 17 January 2002 and that she has never complained of chest pain or breathing problems. He continues that the applicant was seen in his office on 2 April 2003, complaining of chest pain that started during her basic training in the Army.
Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5, provides, in pertinent part, for separation of enlisted soldiers for non-service aggravated EPTS conditions when the soldier requests waiver of PEB evaluation. This chapter is applicable to enlisted soldiers on active duty for more than 30 days. The case must meet the following conditions: (1) soldier is eligible for referral into the disability system; (2) the soldier does not meet medical retention standards as determined by the MEDBD; (3) the disqualifying defect or condition existed prior to entry on current period of duty and has not been aggravated by such duty; (4) the soldier is mentally competent; (5) knowledge of information about his or her medical conditions would not be harmful to the soldier’s well being; (6) further hospitalization or institutional care is not required; (7) after being advised of the right to a full and fair hearing, the soldier still desires to waive PEB action; and (8) soldier has been advised that a PEB evaluation is required for receipt of Army disability benefits, but waiver of the PEB will not prevent applying for VA benefits. Unless otherwise indicated, the soldier will be separated with an honorable or general discharge. If the soldier is in an entry level status at the time of processing, service will be uncharacterized.
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 noted the applicant's contention that the reason for discharge was inaccurate and that she should have received a medical discharge.
2. The Board noted that appropriate Army medical officials determined that the applicant was medically unfit for duty and that her condition existed prior to service. Therefore, the Board determined that the applicant's separation was appropriate and in accordance with applicable regulations.
3. The Board also noted that the applicant signed the Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings acknowledging that she understood and agreed with the findings by the MEBD that she was medically unfit for service and that her condition existed prior to service.
4. Based on the foregoing, the Board determined that the applicant was properly discharged, particularly since her condition existed prior to her enlistment.
5. 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.
6. 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
___KAN _ __LE____ ___JTM_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089793 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013365
The applicant requests that her physical evaluation board (PEB) findings be corrected to show she was found unfit under the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 5289 and 5288, that her disability rating be corrected to show 50 percent, and that she be medically retired due to her increased disability rating. She was rated under the VASRD and given a 10-percent disability rating for codes 5299-5295. Records provided by the VA indicate the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011313
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from "disability, existed prior to service (EPTS), physical evaluation board (PEB)" to "disability." The SPD code "JFM" is the correct code for Soldiers separating under Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b (physical disability existing prior to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007632
The Chief recommended that the request for continuance on active duty not be favorably considered due to the physical impairment described on the attached DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) and in available medical records. Army Regulation 635-40 also provides that a Soldier may be separated with severance pay if the Soldier's disability is rated at less than 30 percent, if the Soldier has less than 20 years of service as defined in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1208, and if the Soldier's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017110
He also pointed out that the following diagnoses should be included in the MEBD: pain management, prescription of morphine along with other medications daily; sinus tachycardia; atypical chest pain; hypertension; upper and lower extremities hampered prompting the use of a wheelchair; left leg atrophy; left shoulder weakness; cellulitiis of right arm; cutaneous chest wall nodule and biopsy; and non-alcoholic liver disease. f. The PEB recommended a rating of 20 percent and that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005760
The PEB determined the condition was incurred or aggravated in the line duty and recommended a 20-percent disability rating; and c. 5000 - osteomyelitis, femur, left, with evidence of active infection within the past 5 years (MEBD diagnosis 3, NS, addendum). Scoliosis is a curving of the spine. The first record of documented medical treatment available is over 4 years after the applicant's enlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008599
Further, the PEB found that the applicant's medical and physical impairments prevented her from reasonably performing the duties required by her rank and military specialty. The formal hearing affirmed the findings of the PEB held on 12 February 2007 which were the applicant was physically unfit and recommended a 10 percent disability rating for chronic neck pain due to degenerative disc disease and directed she be separated with severance pay. Those members who do not meet medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012832
The applicant requests correction of his records to show all the conditions that were listed on his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) are rated. The reflux disease was rated at 10 percent and his psychiatric conditions were also rated. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002024
The PEB recommended that the applicant be separated with entitlement to severance pay if otherwise qualified. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. The "JFL" SPD code is the correct code for Soldiers separating under paragraph 4-24b(3) of Army Regulation 635-200...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002024
The PEB recommended that the applicant be separated with entitlement to severance pay if otherwise qualified. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. The "JFL" SPD code is the correct code for Soldiers separating under paragraph 4-24b(3) of Army Regulation 635-200...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014067
She has now been rated at 100% disabled by the VA and her issues now are the same as when she was on active duty. A 29 April 2003 chest x-ray was normal. The applicant had 9 years of active duty in MOS 91B (Medical Specialist).