Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040005656C070208
Original file (040005656C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          19 AUGUST 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040005656


      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. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Curtis L. Greenway            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |

      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 2 June 2004 separation
under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2e be revoked
and she be returned to active duty.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was involuntarily discharged
after failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  However, she notes
that prior to her discharge she had complained of shoulder pain.  Within
days of her discharge, she reported to medical officials who discovered
that she was suffering from cancer, which directly attributed to her
inability to pass the APFT.

3.  The applicant provides a statement from the Office of the Surgeon
General, a statement from her attending physician, and extracts from her
service medical records in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Documents available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 15 January 2002.  She was promoted to pay grade E-3 in
January 2003.

2.  In October 2003 the applicant complained to medical personnel that she
was experiencing left shoulder pain for more than one month.  She continued
to seek medical attention for the complaint, underwent physical therapy,
was prescribed medication, and in January 2004 was given a 60-day temporary
physical profile for “shoulder injury (AC separation).”  The profile
limited the use of her left arm.   Her initial profile expired in March
2004 and in April 2004 she received another temporary profile (30 days).

3.  During a January 2004 medical visit, the applicant reported that she
had slipped and fell on ice with her left hand stretched out behind her.  X-
rays were negative and she had a full range of motion in her shoulder.

4.  During a 23 March 2004 the applicant related to medical officials that
both her mother and sister had suffered from cancer.

5.  In May 2004, after the applicant’s last temporary physical profile
expired, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to
administratively separate her from active duty under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, because the applicant had failed the APFT
on six different occasions. The test scorecards showed that the applicant
consistently failed the run portion of the APFT.  The commander also noted
that the applicant was punished once under Article 15 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice.  The basis for the punishment was not available to the
Board.  The applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant received a
general discharge.

6.  The applicant and her legal counsel appealed the commander’s
recommendation regarding the general discharge.  However, the separation
authority approved the commander’s recommendation and on 2 June 2004 the
applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 13-2e.  She was issued a general discharge certificate.  At the
time of the applicant’s separation she was serving in Germany and had
slightly more than 2 years of active Federal service.

7.  Following her separation the applicant relocated to Texas.  On 21 June
2004, just days after her separation from active duty, the applicant
reported to the emergency room at Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas and
was ultimately diagnosed with Nodular Sclerosing Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a form
of cancer.

8.  A statement from the applicant’s attending physician at Brooke Army
Medical Center noted that a chest x-ray was done on 21 June 2004 after the
applicant complained of severe shoulder pain with left arm swelling and a
cough.  The
x-ray revealed a “very large mass in the anterior mediastinum.”  A biopsy
confirmed the lymphoma.  The attending physician indicated that considering
the size of the large mass and the duration of the applicant’s symptoms, it
was his “strong” opinion that the tumor existed prior to the applicant’s
discharge from the Army.

9.  A statement from the Office of The Surgeon General noted, after a
review of the applicant’s medical file, that the tumor in the applicant’s
left upper chest was pressing on her aorta and causing the left sided
shoulder pain.  They concluded that the condition was present while the
applicant was on active duty and “had a direct effect on her ability to
successfully complete an APFT.”

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 provides for the administrative
separation of Soldiers for unsatisfactory performance.  Paragraph 13-2e
specially applies to the separation of Soldiers “without medical
limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army physical fitness
test….”  The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory
performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable
conditions as warranted by their military record.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the evidence shows that the applicant only failed the run
portions of her APFTs, clearly her medical condition, which was not
diagnosed until after her separation, could have contributed to her
inability to fully participate in the Army’s physical fitness program,
including successful performance on an APFT.

2.  As such, in the interest of justice and equity, it would be appropriate
to void the applicant’s June 2004 administrative separation action and
reinstate her to active duty with restoration of all rights and privileges,
including all appropriate back pay and allowances.

BOARD VOTE:

__FE ___  ___CLG _  ___WDP_  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected:

      a.  by declaring the applicant’s 2 June 2004 general discharge from
the Army null and void; and


      b.  by reinstating the applicant on active duty in pay grade E-3
without any loss of creditable service and with restoration of all rights
and privileges, including all appropriate back pay and allowances.




            _____ Fred Eichorn______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005656                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040819                                |
|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.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01950

    Original file (PD2012 01950 .rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The MEB forwarded the chronic right shoulder pain s/p excision of soft tissue mass right superior sulcus conditionto the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Right Shoulder Pain s/p Excision Soft Tissue Mass5099-50030%Painful Right Shoulder s/p Schwannoma Excision520310%20020215No Additional MEB/PEB EntriesDisfiguring Tender Scar of Right Upper Chest780030%20020215Residual Numbness & Tenderness s/p...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00039

    Original file (PD2012-00039.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. In the matter of the chest wall and right shoulder condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 40%, coded 8699-8610 IAW VASRD §4.123a. Providing orders showing that the individual was retired with permanent disability effective the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012109

    Original file (20080012109.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that the DVA rated the FSM's cancer as service-connected and granted him death benefits "because the veteran died of a condition that was military service related" (exhibit F). Bilateral pleural based masses were present, greater on the right. There is no evidence of any multiple myeloma cancer cells during the process of the FSM's retirement physical examination or his prior medical evaluation for back pain.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03762

    Original file (BC-2011-03762.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Eight-Year Rule states “a disabling condition will be found to be in the line of duty, even though the condition EPTS, if the member has at least eight years of service, and the member was on active duty orders specifying a period of 30 days at the time the condition became unfitting, as subsequently determined by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).” The applicant has over eight years of active duty, and therefore, his disability should have been found to be in the LOD as a matter of law....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001100

    Original file (20140001100.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Because the applicant's physical condition was not medically unfitting for retention at the time of his discharge there was no basis for a medical retirement or disability separation from active duty. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated from active duty. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008449

    Original file (20140008449.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 May 2013, the approving authority reviewed the case and stated that in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-4 (LOD Policy, Procedures, and Investigations), chapter 2-6, paragraph 6(c), "Line of Duty Determinations must be supported by substantial evidence and by a greater weight of evidence than supports any different conclusion. Paragraph 4-8(e) states information from the medical records will be used to support a determination that an EPTS condition was or was not aggravated by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009608

    Original file (20080009608.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the examination the applicant stated that the mass had been present since he was 3 years old and the physician noted that he was not sure if the mass could be removed. The applicant's Report of Medical History, dated 25 June 1975, shows that at the time of his examination, the applicant stated that he had two operations on his neck. It states, in pertinent part, that individuals who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for induction...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050012770

    Original file (20050012770.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant (now deceased) requested, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was diagnosed with a malignant tumor while he was in the Army and that his separation with a zero percent disability rating be changed to a medical retirement. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated in April 2004 and he was medically discharged due to chronic pain. It is recognized that the applicant was diagnosed with a malignant tumor about 4 to 6 months after his discharge from the Army.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088146C070403

    Original file (2003088146C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's personnel records contain a DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment) dated 5 April 2001. In a telephone conversation on 29 January 2004 with the 6th Brigade, 84th Division, the staff of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records was informed that the applicant did not meet reenlistment criteria (APFT failure), she had less than 18 years of qualifying service as of October 2002, and she was flagged for [not meeting] body fat [standards]. When...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006941

    Original file (20130006941.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter 3 states a separation will be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time separation action was initiated. The evidence of record shows the applicant's separation action was initiated due to her inability to physically adapt to military service as evidenced by her repeated temporary profiles for stress fractures and her desire to be released from active duty. As she was separated prior to...