Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002869C070208
Original file (20040002869C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 MARCH 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040002869


      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. Thomas Howard                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Osborn                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James Gunlicks                |     |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 that his records be correct to show that he now
goes by the hyphenated first name of “Paul-Andrew” vice the first name of
“Paul” and a middle name of “Andrew.”  The applicant also states that he
should receive both Army disability payments and Department of Veterans
Affairs compensation “together.”

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is being denied medical
benefits, treatment, and a transplant.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his 1997 Department of Veterans
Affairs rating decision, and copies of various documents showing his
hyphenated name as “Paul-Andrew,” including his military identification
card, social security card, and Washington State driver’s license.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 3 February 1986.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
1 June 2004.

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 limitations 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.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 1 December 1981.  His enlistment documents, and all of the
documents in his official military personnel file indicate that he utilized
the first name of “Paul” and the middle name of “Andrew” throughout his
military service.  He authenticated documents by signing them as “Paul A.”
or “Paul Andrew.”  He did not hyphenate his name during his military
service.

4.  On 3 February 1986 the applicant was retired by reason of physical
disability. He received an Army disability rating of 80 percent for
“mesangioproliferative glomerulonephritis, moderately decreased kidney
function” from an informal Physical Evaluation Board convened on 22
November 1985.  The applicant concurred with the rating decision and waived
his right to a formal hearing.  By 1994 the applicant’s kidney condition
was rated at 100 percent by the Department of Veterans Affairs and he had
received additional ratings for other conditions determined by the
Department of Veterans Affairs to be service connected.  His combined
rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs for all of his medical
conditions was 100 percent effective 27 January 1994.

5.  In 1988 the applicant submitted a petition to this Board to have his
Army disability rating increased, in addition to several other demands.
The Board denied his request.  In that 1988 application, the applicant
identified his name as “Paul A.” and authenticated the application with a
signature of “Paul A.”  He did not hyphenate his name.

6.  The 1997 Department of Veterans Affairs also shows the applicant’s name
as “Paul A.” and not hyphenated as “Paul Andrew.”

7.  Public Law 108-136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004, contained a provision to restore retired pay currently deducted
from retirees’ accounts due to their receipt of Department of Veterans (VA)
compensation.  This restoration of retired pay is known as Concurrent
Disability Pay (CDR).  It is applicable to all retirees who have a VA
rated, service-connected disability of 50 percent or higher with the
exception of disability retirees with less than 20 years of military
service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence indicates that the applicant entered active duty and
served his entire enlistment utilizing the name “Paul Andrew” or “Paul A.”
There is no indication that he utilized the hyphenated name “Paul-Andrew.”


2.  It is noted that the Army has an obligation, for historical purposes,
to maintain records as they were constituted at the time of creation.  The
fact that the applicant now utilizes a hyphenated name, or that other
agencies have issued identification documents reflecting that hyphenated
name, is insufficient to justify changing his military records, as they
were originally constituted.  However, the applicant should be aware that a
copy of these proceedings will be included in his Official Military
Personnel File to show that he now uses the hyphenated name of “Paul-
Andrew.”

3.  The applicant did not have 20 years of military service at the time he
was retired by reason of physical disability and as such is not eligible
for CDR.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 February 1986; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
2 February 1989.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year
statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or
evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___TH  __  ___RO__  ___JG  __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  __     Thomas Howard ______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040002869                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050322                                |
|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.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008335C070205

    Original file (20060008335C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Scott W. Faught | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. In the letter from the applicant’s wife, she stated that the applicant did not have hypertension before he went into the Army and opines that his hypertension is due to his experiences in Vietnam. Without evidence to establish a direct, causal relationship to the applicant’s VA rated disabilities to war or the simulation of war, there is insufficient basis in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089279C070403

    Original file (2003089279C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board. Although documents associated with the applicant’s 1991 Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) were not available to the Board, the separation document provided by the applicant in support of her request indicates that she was honorably discharged on 15 October 1991 by reason of physical disability. He concluded by stating that the “degree of stress associated with her current employment and in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011214

    Original file (20060011214.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011214 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. The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show that he had over 20 years of active duty when he retired. Regrettably, the passage of a law 8 years after the applicant retired for physical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007386C070206

    Original file (20050007386C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Army Regulation 635-40 states that, once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show his back condition rendered him unfit to perform his duties at the time of his separation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015325

    Original file (20100015325.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) determination be corrected to show he is eligible for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) for his arteriosclerotic heart disease. The guidance states that in order for a condition to be considered combat related, there must be evidence of the condition having a direct, causal relationship to war or the simulation of war. Incurring disabilities while in a theater of operations or in training exercises is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001736C070206

    Original file (20050001736C070206.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides the denial of his request for reconsideration of his CRSC application, his VA disability ratings, and excerpts from his military records. The OUSD has maintained in these opinions that in order for a condition to be considered combat related, there must be evidence of the condition having a direct, causal relationship to war or the simulation of war. Due to cost constraints, while all military retirees who are rated 50 percent or more disabled by the VA will...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001736C070206

    Original file (20050001736C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated disability for condition of the nervous system be approved for Combat- Related Special Compensation (CRSC). The applicant provides the denial of his request for reconsideration of his CRSC application, his VA disability ratings, and excerpts from his military records. Due to cost constraints, while all military retirees who are rated 50 percent or more disabled by the VA will eventually receive concurrent receipt of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017531

    Original file (20110017531.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests to be granted combat-related special compensation (CRSC). He requests payment of CRSC for this disability because he served in combat in Vietnam and his VA medical record indicates, "The presumption that this condition is related to his time in Vietnam has been established through the VA Compensation and Pension Service endorsed by the Veterans Board of Appeals (VBA)."

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019140

    Original file (20140019140.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests a 20-year Regular Army retirement with maximum medical disability (100 percent) which would qualify her for concurrent retirement and disability pay. On 17 November 2011, the applicant was released from active duty and she was placed on the TDRL on the following day with a combined disability rating of 70 percent. He stated that she had 50 days of accrued leave as of 9 November 2011 and that during her career lifetime, she had cashed in 53 days of leave, thus leaving...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002114

    Original file (20120002114.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120002114 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he was denied Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) although his disabilities resulted from combat action in Vietnam. In his application, he stated he incurred the conditions during active combat in Vietnam.