Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005898C070206
Original file (20050005898C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050005898


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas A. Pagan               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |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 he be issued a 20-year letter (notification
of eligibility for retired pay at age 60).

2.  The applicant states he retired with 21 years, 1 month, and 29 days of
service for pay.  He served his country with honor and dignity and would
still be serving today if it had not been for the disability that forced
his retirement.  He was disappointed when he learned his retired pay was
discontinued as a result of being awarded Department of Veterans Affairs
unemployability compensation for disabilities he received while on active
duty.

3.  The applicant provides the documents listed as enclosures "a" through
"j" on his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 13 March 1989.  The application submitted in this case is
dated     14 April 2005.

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.  The applicant had prior enlisted service in the Regular Army from 23
January 1967 through 22 January 1970; prior enlisted service in the U. S.
Army Reserve not on active duty from 23 January 1970 through 22 January
1973; prior enlisted service in the Regular Army from 15 January 1974
through 5 May 1982; and prior warrant officer service on active duty from 6
May 1982 through 4 May 1986.  On 5 May 1986, he enlisted in the Regular
Army.

4.  On 6 May 1988, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) referred the applicant
to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for diagnoses of (1) anthersclerotic
coronary artery disease manifested by non-Q-wave myocardial infarction;
single vessel disease, status post successful coronary angioplasty; with no
history of congestive heart failure or cardiomegaly; in normal sinus rhythm
and no angina; (2) hyperlipoproteinemia, Type II; and (3) status post
gunshot wound to the left wrist (for which he had been awarded the Purple
Heart).

5.  On 21 December 1988, a PEB found the applicant to be unfit for service.
 He requested continuation on active duty; his request was apparently
denied.  On   13 March 1989, he was released from active duty by reason of
physical disability with a 30 percent disability rating.  He had completed
18 years, 1 month, and    29 days of creditable active service and 21
years, 1 month, and 29 days of service for pay.

6.  By letter dated 9 August 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs found
the applicant to be entitled to individual unemployability effective 16
January 2004.

7.  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.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a
way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his employment on active duty.


8.  The Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act provided for
phased-in restoration of the retired pay deducted from the accounts of
military retirees because of their receipt of VA compensation.  Concurrent
Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP) applies to all retires with a VA-
rated, service-connected disability of 50 percent or higher but does not
apply to disability retirees with less than 20 years of service.  The
phased-in restoration began       1 January 2004.

9.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 12731 provides that a non-regular service
member is entitled, upon application, to retired pay if the person is at
least        60 years of age; has performed at least 20 years of qualifying
service (years in which 50 or more retirement points are earned during each
year and which count as qualifying years of service for retirement benefits
at age 60); and, at the time the applicant retired, had performed the last
eight years of qualifying service while a member of a reserve component.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been carefully considered; however, at
the time of his disability retirement he was a Regular Army enlisted
Soldier.  He did not meet the statutory requirements for a non-regular
retirement and, therefore, was not eligible for a 20-year letter.

2.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 13 March 1989; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         12 March 1992.  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

__tap___  __ena___  __jrs___  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 A. Pagan_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005898                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051122                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |136.02                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004095679C070208

    Original file (2004095679C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated disability for coronary heart disease be considered combat related. As such, without specific evidence that the applicant’s coronary artery disease was the direct, sole result of his diabetes, there is no basis for granting his request. The denial of the applicant’s request does not mean he will not be compensated for his service related disabilities.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00397

    Original file (BC-2005-00397.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, after the second heart attack with triple-bypass surgery in July 1998, the recurrence and hospitalization for sinusitis, and two major back surgeries with subsequent decline in health prior to his permanent retirement he feels his legal counsel did not take into consideration the combined disabilities. The remaining pertinent medical facts are contained in the evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004846C070206

    Original file (20050004846C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    LaVerne M. Douglas | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. For periods before 1 January 2004 (the date this statute was amended), members had to have disabilities for which they have been awarded the Purple Heart and are rated at least 10% disabled or who are rated at least 60% disabled as a direct result of armed conflict, specially hazardous duty, training exercises that simulate war, or caused by an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03091500C070212

    Original file (03091500C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Washington, D.C. PEB indicated that 10 U.S.C., Section 12731b provides that Soldiers with non-duty related medically disqualifying conditions who had at least 15 but less than 20 qualifying years for Reserve retirement could request reassignment to the Retired Reserve with early qualification for Reserve Retired pay at age 60. Army Regulation 135-101 prescribes policy, procedures, and eligibility criteria for appointment in the Reserve Components of the Army for Army Medical Department...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004864C070208

    Original file (20040004864C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, through his Senator's office, that his records be corrected to show he was retired by reason of physical disability after completing 20 years of creditable active service. The 1992 TDRL periodic physical examination recommended the applicant be removed from the TDRL and permanently retired. U. S. Total Army Personnel Command Orders D14-7 dated 25 January 1993 removed him from the TDRL effective 15 February 1993 and permanently retired him with a disability rating of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005816C070205

    Original file (20060005816C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Scott W. Faught | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his military records be corrected to show that he changed his election from Concurrent Receipt to Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) effective 1 January 2004. Therefore, while the applicant’s CRSC was increased effective 1 September 2005, the applicant could not switch to CRSC until the next open season.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075997C070403

    Original file (2002075997C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003774

    Original file (20130003774.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He provides: * a self-authored statement, dated 13 February 2013 * his DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings), convened on 2 March 2010 * his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 8 December 2011 * a letter from U.S. Army human Resources Command (HRC) CRSC Branch, dated 13 December 2012 * two letters of support, dated 12 July and 27 August 2012 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Eligible members are those retirees who have 20 years of service for retired pay computation (or 20 years...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024907

    Original file (20100024907.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He states he/the: * was retired for disability with eligibility to CRDP under Title 10, U.S. Code * Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) fails to pay him CRDP because it incorrectly computed his retirement status and eligibility * previously applied to this Board for correction of his discharge to show that he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), effective 16 October 2004 * is currently receiving 100 percent (%) disability compensation from the Department of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00254

    Original file (PD2011-00254.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    (2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.” The service ratings for unfitting conditions will be reviewed in all cases. In addition to any condition determined to be unfitting by the PEB, the Board’s recommendations are confined to those conditions determined to be unfitting at the time of the CI’s...