RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 6 July 2006
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050014635
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. John J. Wendland, Jr. | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Eric N. Andersen | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Michael J. Flynn | |Member |
| |Mr. Dennis J. Phillips | |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, an upgrade of his reentry (RE) code.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he has a RE code of RE-4 and
would like it upgraded so that he may reenter the Army and serve his
country. He also states, in effect, that after meeting with two orthopedic
doctors and discussing this matter with other professionals, it is clear to
him that he is still fit for duty and he would consider it an honor to
serve once again.
3. The applicant provides two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical
Center, Medical Record Progress Notes, dated 6 October 2004 and 19 October
2004, in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 13 July 1992, the date of his permanent physical disability
retirement. The application submitted in this case is dated 22 September
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's military service records show that he enlisted in the
Regular Army on 9 January 1990. Upon completion of basic combat training
and advanced individual training, the applicant was awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 19K (M1 Armor Crewman).
4. The applicant's military service records show that he was assigned to
Company D, 1st Battalion, 37th Armor, and served in Southwest Asia from
30 December 1990 to 1 May 1991.
5. On 4 November 1991, the applicant sustained a crush injury to his left
hand, which was caused by the hatch on a tank and resulted in the
amputation of the long finger and fractures of the ring and index fingers.
On 27 December 1991, the applicant underwent Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)
Proceedings, which recommended referral of the applicant to a Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB). The MEB was approved on 8 January 1992.
6. On 29 May 1992, the PEB found that the applicant was physically unfit
and recommended a combined rating of 30 percent and permanent disability
retirement of the applicant. The applicant concurred with the PEB decision
and the findings and recommendations were approved on behalf of the
Secretary of the Army on 10 June 1992. The applicant was released from
active duty and placed on the retired list, effective 14 July 1992.
7. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DD Form
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with an
effective date of 13 July 1992. This document shows that the applicant was
honorably separated from active duty based on a permanent physical
disability and placed on the retired list, effective 14 July 1992. In
pertinent part, the DD Form 214 shows in Item 26 (Separation Code) the
entry "SFJ" and in Item 27 (Reentry Code) the entry "RE-4."
8. In support of his application, the applicant provides two VA Medical
Report Progress Notes from his orthopedic doctors at the Orthopedic
Outpatient Clinic, VA Medical Center. These documents show, in pertinent
part, that the two doctors found no reason that would prevent the applicant
from safely returning to the armed forces.
9. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical
fitness standards for enlistment, induction, and appointment in the Army.
Chapter 2 (Physical Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction)
of this Army regulation, in pertinent part, prescribes the medical
conditions and physical defects that are causes for rejection for
appointment, enlistment, and induction into military service. This
document shows that absence of distal and middle phalanx of an index,
middle, or ring finger of either hand, irrespective of the absence or loss
of little finger, is cause for rejection for enlistment.
10. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release
from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their
service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210
(Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) covers eligibility
criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the
Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). Chapter 3 of that
regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for
enlistment and includes a list of Armed Forces RE Codes, including RE codes
for the RA.
11. Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 3-22c, states, in pertinent part,
that RE-4 applies to individuals who were separated from their last period
of service with a non-waivable disqualification. Soldiers who were
separated, discharged, or retired from their term of service because of
physical disability are ineligible for reenlistment and receive an RE code
of RE-4.
12. Paragraph 3-24 of Army Regulation 601-210, states that RE codes may be
changed only if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.
Individuals who have correct RE codes may be processed for a waiver at
their request, if otherwise qualified and a waiver is authorized. No
requirement to change an
RE code exists to qualify for enlistment.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was separated from active duty because of permanent
physical disability; as such, he was not eligible to reenlist and received
an RE code of
RE-4.
2. The fact that the applicant's doctors at the VA Medical Center contend
that he may now be physically able to return to military service is not
sufficient justification to change the applicant’s RE code. Moreover, the
evidence of record shows that absence of distal and middle phalanx of an
index, middle, or ring finger of either hand, irrespective of the absence
or loss of little finger, is cause for rejection for enlistment in the U.S.
Army.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s RE code was
assigned based on the fact that he was not qualified for continuous service
at the time of his separation. Therefore, the applicant’s RE code is
appropriate considering the reason for his separation and there is no basis
to correct the existing code.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.
5. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 13 July 1992; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
12 July 1995. 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.
6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board acknowledges and wishes to
express its appreciation of the applicant's desire to reenter the U.S. Army
and serve his country.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__ENA_ _ _MJF____ __DJP __ 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.
___Eric N. Andersen____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050014635 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON |YYYYMMDD |
|DATE BOARDED |20060706 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |HD |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |19920713 |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |Title 10, USC, 1201 |
|DISCHARGE REASON |Permanent Physical Disability Retirement|
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY |Mr. Chun |
|ISSUES 1. |100.0300.0000 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010216C080213
Army Regulation 635-40 states that to be considered for continuance on active duty, a Soldier must be (a) found unfit by a PEB because of a disability that was in the line of duty; (b) capable of maintaining one's self in a normal military environment without adversely affecting one's health and the health of others and without undue loss of time from duty for medical treatment; (c) physically capable of performing useful duty in an MOS for which he or she is currently qualified or...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00941
The PEB adjudicated “pain left ankle and right wrist” as a single unfitting condition, rated 0% and “fusion of distal interphalangeal joint of the left non-dominant ring finger” as unfitting, rated 0%, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Pre-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Pain Left (this should be right)Ankle and Right Wrist5099-50030%Right Ankle Fracture5010-527110%*19990626Right Wrist, Residuals, status post (s/p)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017243
The MEB determined that the applicant was unfit for further military service and the applicant indicated that he did not desire to continue on active duty. On 16 May 1968, an informal PEB was conducted at Fitzsimmons General Hospital which determined that the applicants diagnosis of Encephalopathy due to trauma and amputation of middle and distal phalanx, left 5th finger made the applicant unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank or grade. The evidence of record clearly shows that...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00068
CI CONTENTION :“PTSD was diagnosed on the narrative summary and listed on the medical board, but I was never evaluated for this condition prior to being medically discharged. At no time was a profile other than S1 assigned and after separation, the CI worked 70 hours per week.After due deliberation, members agreed that the evidence does not support a conclusion that the functional impairment from the PTSD condition was integral to the CI’s inability to perform his AFS requirements and,...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01922
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The exam noted full flexion and abduction, with painful ROM and an MEB was recommended.At the MEB examination on 8 April 2004, 6 months prior to separation, the CI reported shoulder pain, specifically noting “cannot...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01702
The MEB forwarded crushing left hand injury; status post (s/p) surgical treatment of near amputation of left middle, ring and small fingers; arthrofibrosis of the proximal interphalangeal joint of the left middle, ring and small fingers; and decreased left hand grip strength conditions to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. Arthrofibrosis Proximal and Distal Interphalangeal Joints Left Middle, Ring and Small FingersCondition . Physical Disability Board of Review
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00733
Pre‐Sep) – Dated 20010925 VA (1 Week Pre‐Separation) – All Effective Date 20011204 Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam 5154 10% Residuals, Traumatic Partial amputation, left middle finger Patellofemoral pain syndrome, right knee 5299‐5226 10% 20011126 5024 10% 20011126 0% X 0 / Not Service‐Connected x 0* 20011126 ↓No Addi(cid:415)onal MEB/PEB Entries↓ Combined: 10% Combined: 20% *VARD 20030214 denied four additional conditions as “Not Service Connected, No Diagnosis.” ANALYSIS...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00606-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that you were released from active duty on 13 June 1980 and transferred to the...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02511
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Occupational therapy examination on 29 August 2007 recorded normal range-of-motion (ROM) of the joints of the middle finger except for 7 degrees of decreased extension at the middle joint of the middle finger. Grip...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2002-126
This final decision, dated May 22, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was dis- charged from the Coast Guard in 1971, instead of being placed on the temporary dis- ability retired list (TDRL) and permanently retired by reason of physical disability in 1976 with a 30 percent disability rating. The applicant was permanently retired from the Coast Guard on March 8, 1976. VIEWS OF...