Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102151C070208
Original file (2004102151C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        7 December 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004102151


      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. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John E. Denning               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James B. 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, in effect, that his General (under honorable
conditions) separation from the Army National Guard as an unsatisfactory
participant be upgraded to Honorable by reason of physical disability.

2.  The applicant states that he hurt his knee during physical training and
the National Guard denied him medical treatment and unjustly discharged
him.

3.  The applicant provides a statement and a copy of his NGB Form 22
(Report of Separation and Record of Service).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG) on
11 June 1997.  He was trained as a Technical Engineering Specialist in
military occupational specialty (MOS) 51T and was assigned to the 512th
Engineer Battalion, Cincinnati, Ohio.

2.  On 7 March 1999, the applicant was present for a weekend drill.  During
physical fitness training, he injured his right knee.  An informal line-of-
duty (LOD) investigation was conducted which found the applicant's injury
to have occurred in the line of duty.  The LOD was approved on 24 March
1999.

3.  On 12 March 1999, the applicant underwent examination at the Veterans
Administration (VA) hospital.  The examination showed "mild degenerative
changes involving the medial compartment [of the right knee] with
subcondylar sclerosis."  The applicant was also briefed and signed a
disability counseling statement informing him that he could not seek
private medical care without OHARNG approval.

4.  In July 1999, the applicant underwent an operation to replace his
anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in his right knee.  On 26 May 2000, he had
arthroscopic surgery to repair a medial meniscus tear.

5.  The administrative separation packet is not a part of the record.
However, in late July or early August 2000, the applicant was processed for
separation as an unsatisfactory participant because he missed an
undisclosed number of drills.  He rebutted the charges in the separation
packet on 22 August 2000 by stating
that he disputed the number [10] of missed drills because his doctor sent
excuses for 4 absences.  He also contended that he was simply too ill to
participate in National Guard activities and asked to be released from
further obligation to serve.

6.  On 1 September 2000, the applicant was separated from the OHARNG with a
General discharge under the provisions of paragraph 8-26k, National Guard
Regulation (NGR) 600-200, unsatisfactory participant.

7.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau which states that the
applicant was separated because he was an unsatisfactory participant and
that his knee condition did not prevent him from attending drills or annual
training.  The applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to the
advisory opinion and stated that he was on prescription medication
(darvocet and vicodin) and could not function as a Soldier.  He states that
he did, in fact, report for duty, but became ill and began vomiting.  He
adds that his unit sent him to hard labor in a cemetery.  He reiterates his
contention that his unit denied him medical care.

8.  NGR 600-200, chapter 8, and Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of
Enlisted Personnel), chapter 7, provide for the separation of enlisted
personnel of the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard for misconduct.
Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of
misconduct, unsatisfactory participation [emphasis added], commission of a
serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be
taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established
that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed and an unfit
medical condition (AR 40-501) is not the direct or substantial contributing
cause of his or her misconduct.  A discharge under other than honorable
conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this
chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge
if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Only the separation
authority listed in AR 135-178, paragraph 1-25 may approve an honorable
discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under
this provision of regulation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant injured his right knee in the line of duty on 7 March
1999.  He underwent an ACL replacement and a medial meniscus tear repair in
1999 and 2000.

2.  The applicant apparently did not report for drill on approximately 10
occasions between April 1999 and July 2000 and was the subject of
administrative separation action for unsatisfactory participation.
Although the separation packet is not in the record, administrative
regularity is presumed in the separation process.

3.  The applicant did not have a medically unfitting condition and was not
authorized separation by reason of physical disability.  Even when he was
recuperating from his surgeries, he could have continued to attend drills.
By his own admission in his rebuttal to the separation action, he did not
have medical excuses for all of his absences and was, therefore, absent
without proper authority (AWOL).

4.  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

__mdm___  __jed___  __jbg___  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.




                                        Mark D. Manning
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004102151                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041207                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20000901                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NGR 600-200 P8-26k                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A27.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00025

    Original file (PD2010-00025.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Orthopedic exam several weeks later noted a 1+ effusion with a 1+ Lachman test (i.e., positive anterior instability). After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board unanimously recommends a separation rating of 10% for the left knee ACL condition coded 5257 and 10% for the medial meniscus condition coded 5259 for a combined rating of 20%. Subj: PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR) RECOMMENDATIONS

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR20040002288

    Original file (AR20040002288.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge ADT 970730 971210 Uncharacterized PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. However, the Board found that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW Lieutenant...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003095106

    Original file (AR2003095106.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 February 2000, as a result of the applicant’s unexcused absences and having received no response from the applicant, the unit commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130014997

    Original file (AR20130014997.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 8 May 2000 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Participation, NGR 600-200, Chapter 8, paragraph 26k, NA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 29th Military Police Company, Pikesville, MD f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: NIF h. Total Service: 5 years, 11 months, 29 days i. The applicant provided documentation from the Deputy G-1, Maryland Army National Guard, that indicates...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002960

    Original file (20130002960.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the case at hand, the applicant had a wrist sprain. In the absence of any document showing the medically disqualifying condition, it can only be concluded that the LOD determination was not for the applicant's sprained wrist. The applicant received an LOD statement for a wrist injury in July 2001. b.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00033

    Original file (PD2011-00033.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Informal PEB adjudicated the right knee ACL instability existed prior to service (EPTS) and right knee medial meniscus tear and lateral meniscus tear conditions as unfitting, combined under a single code and rated 20% with likely application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.39 and Veteran’s Administration Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD). ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Right Knee ACL...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00989

    Original file (PD2012-00989.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6044.40, however, resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness determinations and rating decisions for disability at the time of separation. Right Knee Condition.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009048

    Original file (20080009048.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system (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 office, grade, rank, or rating. The PEB is required by law to determine the physical disability rating using the Veterans Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In the applicant's case, there is no evidence that his left...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090003700

    Original file (AR20090003700.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    An enlisted member separated for misconduct which includes unsatisfactory participation will normally be furnished a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016053

    Original file (AR20060016053.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Legal Basis for Separation: National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army National Guard. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the State of Michigan Army National Guard. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E....