Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011582C070208
Original file (20040011582C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

-+


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            22 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:         AR20040011582


      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             |
|     |Mr. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard Ingold                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |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 his active duty orders be
extended from 12 July until 21 July 2003.

2.  The applicant states that his orders should be amended to show him on
active duty from 12 July to 21 July 2003, because he was under a doctor’s
care and should not have out-processed to start his leave off of active
duty until he was released from the doctor’s care on 21 July 2003.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his report of separation (DD Form
214), copies of his orders ordering him to active duty and releasing him
from active duty, copies of a definitive medical statement, a physician’s
statement and a Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.   On 3 September 2002, while serving in the pay grade of E-6 in the
Alabama Army National Guard (ALARNG), he was ordered to active duty with
his unit in support of Operations Nobel Eagle and Enduring Freedom for a
period not to exceed 365 days.  His report date to Fort Rucker, Alabama,
was 6 September 2002.

2.  On 21 May 2003, he underwent surgery at Fort Rucker to repair a Ventral
Hernia.  A physician’s statement dated 17 July 2003 indicates that he had
follow-up appointments scheduled for 16 June and 16 July 2003 and that the
applicant could return to full military duty effective 21 July 2003.

3.  On 3 June 2003, orders were published by the Army Aviation Center and
Fort Rucker, which released the applicant and 27 other members of his unit
from active duty effective 4 July 2003.  His orders specified that he was
entitled to medical benefits until 2 September 2003.

4.  Subsequent to the applicant’s release from active duty, the ALARNG
published orders authorizing the applicant incapacitation pay status for
the period of 5 July to 21 July 2003.  The orders also authorized him
travel to Fort Rucker for medical treatment/appointments.  The compensation
authorized was limited to an amount equal to the member’s lost civilian
earned income or Military Pay and Allowances, whichever was less.  His
orders also specified that he was not authorized to perform any type of
duty and that retirement points were not authorized during the period of
incapacitation.
5.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was requested
from the ALARNG which opined that the applicant received a statement from a
physician on 16 July 2003 which stated that he would be able to perform his
civilian and military duties on 21 July 2003.  Consequently, because he had
been released from active duty on 4 July 2003, the ALARNG authorized him
incapacitation pay for the period of 5 July to 21 July 2003.  It further
opined that the ALARNG had no control on when he was released from active
duty and could only compensate him with incapacitation pay.  Furthermore,
the only benefit he did not receive by being placed in that status was that
he did not accrue the retirement points he would have accrued had he
remained on active duty.

6.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to
date, no response has been received by the staff of the Board.

7.  A review of the available records shows no indication that the
applicant requested to remain on active duty to receive his follow-up
appointment on 16 July 2003.

8.  Army Regulation 135-381, Incapacitation of Reserve Component Soldiers,
provides, in pertinent part, that on release from active duty or inactive
duty for training, a soldier may qualify for incapacitation pay benefits.
Soldiers are entitled to a portion of the same monthly pay and allowances
as provided members of the Active Army with corresponding grade, length of
service, marital status, and number of dependents for each period the
Soldier is unable to perform normal military duties or can demonstrate loss
of compensation from nonmilitary income.  Soldiers will not be issued
active duty orders in place of incapacitation pay as a means of providing
benefits to which they might otherwise not be entitled.  It further
provides that individuals injured while on active duty for more than 30
days may have their active duty orders extended to receive medical
treatment.  However, individuals will not be extended on active duty
without their written consent.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he should have been extended on active
duty until 21 July 2003 has been noted.  However, the applicant has failed
to show through the evidence submitted that he unjustly denied the
opportunity to remain of active duty for the purpose of attending his
scheduled follow-up appointment on 16 July 2003.

2.  He was released from active duty (REFRAD) on 4 July 2003, along with
other members of his unit due to completion of required service and had a
scheduled follow-up appointment for 16 July 2003.  There is no evidence
that he made this information known at the time of his REFRAD or that he
consented at the time to be extended for the purpose of medical treatment.

3.  The applicant has also failed to show through the evidence submitted
with his application that he was deemed unfit for separation or that he was
unjustly REFRAD.

4.  The applicant received incapacitation pay status from the ALARNG for
the period beginning immediately after his REFRAD (5 July 2003) until 21
July 2003, when he was deemed fit to return to duty.  Accordingly, there
appears to be no basis to grant his request.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JA___  ___BI ___  ___MF __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.



            ____James Anderholm__________________
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011582                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050922                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2003/07/04                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, CH 4                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |REFRAD                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |189/corr dis date                       |
|1.110.0000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010619

    Original file (20080010619.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 24 October 1991, to show he was medically discharged with entitlement to severance pay and incapacitation pay. The applicant states that he suffered injuries during his service in Saudi Arabia and that his injuries were determined to be “In Line of Duty.” He was subsequently assigned to a medical holding detachment at Fort McClellan,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03094856C070212

    Original file (03094856C070212.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    By 14 August 2001 the Alabama Army National Guard resolved the issue of the applicant’s home of record and initiated a formal line of duty investigation to determine if injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of the March 1999 motor vehicle accident were considered to have occurred in the line of duty. He noted that his “staff has processed incapacitation pay from March 1999 to June 1999 for which he [the applicant] was entitled and [was] coordinating with the medical treatment...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011896

    Original file (20080011896.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings) and reconsideration of his application for entitlement to incapacitation pay to include reimbursement of his related personal expenses, payment of base pay and allowances less incapacitation pay at the rate of E-7 for the period 16 August 2002 through July 2007, civilian salary compensation for the period August 2007 through July 2012, and a review for an increase of his Veterans...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005550

    Original file (20070005550.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel essentially states that the applicant's case appears to be yet another case wherein a member of the United States Army National Guard was not well-served, and denied due process before PEB proceedings. On 28 June 2006, the applicant, on his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board [PEB] Proceedings) [enclosure 4], did not concur with the informal PEB proceedings, but waived a formal hearing. As a result, his entitlement to incapacitation pay was correctly stopped effective 17 May...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003599

    Original file (20110003599.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The same memorandum indicated that: * The estimated length of recovery time was 6 to 8 weeks * Incapacitation pay was authorized from 8 June to 28 September 2002 * Can the member perform her civilian duties: Yes * Can the member perform her military duties: Yes 8. She is not entitled to incapacitation pay because she was receiving active duty pay and her condition did not prevent her from performing her military or civilian duties. Her pay records indicate she continued to receive active...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019474

    Original file (20110019474.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A Standard Form 600 shows he was seen by a physician on 2 January 2004 for a complaint of lower back pain that had been recurring for 2 months. The evidence shows the applicant's chain of command failed to complete and/or submit an LOD investigation and ensure the applicant was properly referred to the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) and Department of Defense (DOD)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023859

    Original file (20110023859.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    f. he believes an extension of the 6-month limit for INCAP pay is warranted since the length of time for the process to be completed (from REFRAD in October 2008 to disability retirement in May 2011) was not due to any fault or lack of effort of his own. A memorandum issued by the Walson Army Medical Support Element, Fort Dix, NJ, dated 30 September 2008, states: * The applicant would be REFRAD and returned to his unit of assignment * He was on active duty for 25 days or less with a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004288C070205

    Original file (20060004288C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provided a letter, dated 22 February 2006, from the National Guard Bureau which states that since the determination of his Report of Investigation was changed to “In Line of Duty” this qualifies him for incapacitation pay for the period 16 October 1999 to 1 November 2003. Army Regulation 135-381 states, in pertinent part, that Soldiers are entitled to a portion of the same monthly pay and allowances as is provided members of the Active Army with corresponding grade, length of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004949

    Original file (20120004949.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. a USARC Form 46-2 (Military Physician’s Statement of Soldier’s Incapacitation/Fitness for Duty), dated 4 September 2004, showing in Part A (Incapacitation for Military Duties) that a military physician verified the applicant was not fit to perform military duties from 4 September 2003 to 4 March 2004. d. Types of Claims: (1) Member unable to perform military duties – a member who is unable to perform military duties is entitled to full pay and allowances, including all incentive pay,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010372

    Original file (20110010372.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's contentions that his retired grade should be colonel/O-6 instead of lieutenant colonel/O-5 and that he was unaware he had been transferred to the Retired Reserve until March 2010 were carefully considered and determined to lack merit. Additionally, there is no substantive evidence showing he was referred to a medical evaluation board at the time of his transfer to the Retired Reserve. His major surgery was not performed until 2 years after his transfer to the Retired...