| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his December 1972 Department of the Army Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings) be corrected by checking item 10 on the form to show that his disability “is” the result of an injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war as defined by law.
2. The applicant states that the block should have been checked because he was permanently retired from the Army due to medical reason.
3. The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on
20 December 1972. The application submitted in this case is dated 1 April 2003.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant entered active duty on 26 March 1968 and served in Vietnam between August 1968 and August 1969. He was originally released from active duty on 15 May 1970, his scheduled separation date.
4. In May 1972 the Army Board for Correction of Military Records noted that the applicant had been admitted to Walter Reed General Hospital in March 1970 with “the chief complain of low back and left lower extremity pain….” The Board proceedings indicated that the applicant underwent an operation on his back and that L5-S1 disc was removed and he was ultimately discharged to duty on
10 April 1970, given 30 days of convalescent leave and a 6-month physical profile.
5. The May 1972 proceeding noted that the applicant was granted a 100 percent disability rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs in July 1971 retroactive to May 1970. The Board ultimately concluded that the applicant was physically unfit to perform his duties at the time of his release from active duty in May 1970 and corrected his records to show that he was retired from active duty on 16 May 1970 and his name placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). Because the action was accomplished by the Board no Department of the Army Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings) was completed and hence no determination was made concerning whether the applicant’s injuries were incurred as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in line of duty during a period of war.
6. On 20 December 1972 the applicant’s cases was reviewed by an informal Physical Evaluation Board. A November 1972 medical narrative summary noted that the applicant had 6 to 7 months of low back pain with left leg radiation beginning in June 1969. The specific cause of the back pain was not defined in the applicant’s narrative summary.
7. The December 1972 Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) concluded that the applicant’s name should be removed from the TDRL and permanently retired with a 40 percent disability rating. However, the PEB did not check either the “is” or “is not” block of item 10 on the Department of the Army Form 199. The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived his right to a formal hearing.
8. On 23 February 1973 the applicant’s name was removed from the TDRL and he was permanently retired.
9. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) states that certain advantages accrue to Soldiers who are retired for physical disability and later return to work for the Federal Government when it is determined that the disability for which retired was incurred under specific circumstances. As part of its findings, the PEB will make an entry in item 10 of the Department of the Army Form 199 to reflect its determination as to whether the disability resulted from injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict and which itself renders the Soldier unfit. A disability may be considered a direct result of armed conflict if the disability incurred while the Soldier was engaged in armed conflict, or in an operation or incident involving armed conflict or the likelihood of armed conflict, or a direct causal relationship exists between the armed conflict or the incident or operation, and the disability. Additionally, if the unfitting disability was caused by an instrumentality of war and was incurred in the line of duty during a period of war as defined by law, it may be considered to have been a direct result of armed conflict. Then, as now, Army Regulation 635-40 stated that an entry would be made in item 10 if the Department of the Army Form 199 placing him on the TDRL did not indicate a finding.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence shows that an entry in item 10 of the applicant’s Department of the Army Form 199 was omitted. Because there was, in effect, no Department of the Army Form 199 completed recommending placement of the applicant on the TDRL, no “combat related” finding was made. Hence a finding should have been accomplished when the final PEB document was completed.
2. Although the evidence shows that the applicant’s unfitting condition was his lower back pain, there is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which confirms that his lower back pain was the direct result of armed conflict or that it was caused by an instrumentality of war during a period of war defined by law. In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis for checking the “is” block in item 10 of his Department of the Army Form 199.
3. Although there is no evidence which would justify checking the “is” block in item 10, it would be appropriate to check the “is not” block in order that the form be correctly completed in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40.
BOARD VOTE:
__LEM __ __RWA _ __PHM __ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089919 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040113 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007032C070205
Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. After the formal hearing, the board carefully considered all of the available evidence in his case and found that the applicant was physically unfit because of service connected disability, and recommended that he be placed on the TDRL and rated 40 percent disabled. The applicant states that the injury or disease...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011668
The applicant requests correction of item 10 of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 15 February 1972, to show he was placed on disability because of an injury received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict. On 1 February 1970 and 7 July 1970, medical evaluation boards found him medically unfit due to injuries resulting from multiple fragment wounds sustained on 15 March 1969 while in the RVN during enemy mortar attacks. The DA Form 199,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027339
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 14 April 2006, to show that his disability was combat-related. He submitted his DA Form 199, dated 14 April 2006, which shows in item 9 he was found to be physically unfit with a recommended combined disability rating of 50 percent (%) and that the applicant be placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) with reexamination during October 2007. There is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018082
The applicant requests correction of his retirement orders to show his disability did (instead of did not) result from a combat-related injury. The applicant states: * His Line of Duty (LOD) established that his injuries occurred during deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) from 2005 to 2006 * They occurred in a combat situation and should be considered combat-related and in direct result of armed conflict/war * His retirement orders state that his injuries were not combat-related; he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009536
The applicant's DA Form 199 contains the following entries in Item 10 (If Retired Because of Disability, the Board Makes the Recommended Finding that): * Item 10A - The Soldiers retirement is not based on disability from injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurring in line of duty during a period of war as defined by law * Item 10B - Evidence of record reflects the Soldier was not a member or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008239
The applicant requests correction of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) to show the following entries as "Yes" instead of "No": a. On 24 March 2003, he injured his knee while playing basketball at Fort Polk, LA, and he was treated at Bayne-Jones Army Community Hospital, AR. The applicant's DA Form 199 contains the following entries in item 10 (If Retired Because of Disability, the Board Makes the Recommended Finding that): * the Soldier's retirement is not based...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011593
The applicant requests correction of her retirement orders to show the following entries as "Yes" instead of "No": a. Her records also show she served in Kuwait from 13 January 2003 to 16 May 2003. The applicant's DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) contains the following entries in Item 10 (If Retired Because of Disability, the Board Makes the Recommended Finding that): * The Soldiers retirement is not based on disability from injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009738
The applicant's DA Form 199 contains the following entries in item 10 (If Retired Because of Disability, the Board Makes the Recommended Finding that): a. The orders stated: * Disability is based on injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war as defined by law: Yes * Member of an armed force on 24 September 1975: "No" * Disability resulted from a combat...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001661
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to reflect the proper code to show he was retired due to permanent disability based on an injury or disease received in the line of duty (LOD) as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and resulted from a combat-related injury as defined in Title 26, U.S. Code, section 104. In block 10c of the DA Form 199, the board will record its...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016982
c The PEB also considered his other medical conditions as listed on the MEB; however, these conditions were not found to be unfitting and therefore they were not rated. b The PEB also considered his other medical conditions as listed on the MEB; however, these conditions were not found to be unfitting and therefore were not rated. He states the applicant, as a child, never had the mental problems as he did after returning from his second tour of duty in Iraq.