RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 25 October 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001052
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. Edmund P. Mercanti
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. James E. Anderholm
Chairperson
Mr. Jose A. Martinez
Member
Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas
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 reconsideration of the Boards denial of his request to upgrade his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), and to correct his military medical records to show that he suffered internal injuries as a result of a motorcycle accident.
2. The applicant states that his motorcycle accident caused internal injuries and contributed to his current medical condition of nerve damage and disc disease. His motorcycle accident also caused him to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which has caused him to experience horrific flashbacks, depression, anxiety, sleeplessness and, to mask these symptoms, drug and alcohol abuse. The applicant adds that he was not properly medically screened prior to his enlistment. Also, he never consulted with legal counsel in conjunction with his discharge, nor did he sign any documents which stated that he did.
3. The applicant provides a diagnostic radiology dated 4 December 1998 which shows that the applicant had an L5-S1 disc space narrowing and transverse process anomaly. He also submits a patient instruction sheet dated 12 September 2004 which shows the medication he was prescribed.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20040001782, on 30 November 2004.
2. Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 1-2, in effect at the time, provided that no enlisted member may be referred for physical disability processing when action has been or will be taken to separate him or her for unfitness, except when the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction determines that the disability was the cause or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct, or that circumstances warrant physical disability processing in lieu of administrative processing. A copy of the signed decision of the general court-martial authority directing physical disability processing will be included with the records.
3. Army Regulation 635-40, in effect at the time, provided that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.
4. Army Regulation 635-40, in effect at the time, stated that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. The overall effect of all disabilities present in an individual whose physical fitness is under evaluation must be considered both from the standpoint of how the disabilities affect the individuals performance, and requirements which may be imposed on the Army to maintain and protect him during future duty assignments. All relevant evidence must be considered in evaluating the fitness of a member. When a member is referred for physical evaluation, evaluations of his performance of duty by his supervisors may provide better evidence than a clinical estimate by a physician of the members physical ability to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating until the time he was referred for physical evaluation. Thus, if evidence establishes that the member adequately performed the normal duties of his office, grade, rank or rating until the time he was referred for physical evaluation, he might be considered fit for duty, even though medical evidence indicates his physical ability to perform such duties may be questionable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Medical records which show that the applicant suffered from nerve damage and disc disease 18 years after his discharge does not establish that he had these conditions while he was on active duty.
2. The applicant has not submitted any documentation which would show that he has been diagnosed with PTSD while he was on active duty.
3. However, even if the applicant did have nerve damage, disc disease and PTSD while he was on active duty, there is no evidence or indication that these conditions were medically disqualifying or physically unfitting. As such, he would not have been eligible to be considered for separation due to physical unfitness.
3. Also, since the applicant was pending a discharge UOTHC due to his conviction by two summary courts-martial, he could not be referred to physical disability processing in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40.
4. As such, there is no basis to correct the applicants medical records or to upgrade his discharge UOTHC.
5. The Board stated in its previous consideration that the applicant, after consulting with counsel, acknowledged his contemplated separation for misconduct. He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The applicant refutes that statement in his current request to the Board. In this regard, the applicant stated in his signed request for discharge dated 4 August 1980, I have been advised by my consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish my separation for misconduct . . .
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____lmd_ ____jea__ ___jam__ 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20040001782, on 30 November 2004.
_________James E. Anderhjolm______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20050001052
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20051025
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001052C070206
The applicant requests reconsideration of the Board’s denial of his request to upgrade his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), and to correct his military medical records to show that he suffered internal injuries as a result of a motorcycle accident. All relevant evidence must be considered in evaluating the fitness of a member. Thus, if evidence establishes that the member adequately performed the normal duties of his office, grade, rank or rating until the time he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051656C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00025
Fibromyalgia was a diagnosis considered while in service as a cause of his unfitting neck and back pain. The CI’s neck and back pain were considered by the Board above. Service Treatment Record
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00938
Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Boards defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The PEB rated the CIs back pain condition at 10%, coded 5295 (lumbosacral strain) citing pain with motion without spasm (but also noted moderate limitation of motion). RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CIs prior determination be modified as follows, effective as...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01839
The commander’s statement corroborated that the condition limited him in his duties and physical fitness, and further documented the CI was unable to pull, push, bend, run and lift without making his back condition worse, was unable to wear load bearing equipment, and was still working in his MOS within his limitations.At the MEB exam, the CI reported constant, slight pain which awoke him at night, worsened with prolonged sitting or standing, and bending or heavy lifting. Therefore, based...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00917
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the chronic LBP as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of AR 635-40 B-29, and the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Lumbar spine X-rays, in September 2004, were normal. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CIs prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Chronic Low Back Pain 5237 20% COMBINED 20% The...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01394
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease without Neurologic Deficit .Service treatment records showed the CI deployed to Iraq from September 2004-September 2005. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001054
The PEB rated him at 10 percent under VASRD 9421, somatization disorder, for use of medications to control the symptoms of that particular diagnosed condition. Evidence of record shows the military only found one psychiatric condition to be present and unfitting when he was placed on the TDRL (conversion disorder) and he agreed with the initial diagnosis and rating of that condition. There is insufficient evidence to show the applicants PEB disability ratings are incorrect or that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012532
That is why the VA can rate the applicant for having medical conditions even though those same conditions did not make him unfit to perform his military duties. The PEB found the applicant to be unfit under VASRD code 8626 due to chronic neuritis in his left leg, including wounds to the left proximal medial thigh, and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. If he should ask the VA to rate him for PTSD, and if he received even just a 10 percent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010815
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 January 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120010815 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides: * DD Form 294 (Application for a Review by the Physical Disability Board of Review of the Rating Awarded Accompanying a Medical Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Psychological Evaluation CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation...