Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002875C070205
Original file (20060002875C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002875


      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:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |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 records be corrected to
show he is entitled to a Reserve retirement.

2.  The applicant states that he was wrongfully separated.  [He and other]
Soldiers were separated from the rest of the company and told to prepare to
be discharged.  They would be sent home immediately.  If he had wanted to
be discharged, he could have done it himself.  [He had] almost 19 years of
service and no problems during those years.  He does not know what happened
or why, because he did nothing wrong.

3.  The applicant provides two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United
States Report of Transfer or Discharge/Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty) for the periods ending 2 June 1967 and 1 March 1991,
respectively; two Honorable Discharge Certificates; U. S. Army Reserve
discharge orders dated 24 May 1970; a 26 August 1991 letter from the
Department of Veterans Affairs; and page 2 of an unidentified document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 1 March 1991.  The application submitted in this case is dated
31 December 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 was born on 29 April 1943.  After having had prior
service in the Regular Army and the U. S. Army Reserve, he enlisted in the
Army National Guard on 5 September 1975.

4.  The applicant volunteered for active duty with his unit for Operation
Desert Shield and entered active duty on 27 September 1990.

5.  The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary (typed 6 December
1990) indicates that the applicant arrived at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA, at
which time he was reported by others to be talking to himself, having
difficulty understanding directions, and paying attention to information
even though he was a good Soldier.  It was reported that he did not
participate during training drills.  The applicant informed the examiner
that he felt the new commander sent him for a mental evaluation because the
commander did not know him.  The Narrative Summary noted that the applicant
stated (with confirmation from the applicant’s family) that he had previous
psychiatric hospitalization in 1972 and in 1974.  He was diagnosed with
schizophrenia and referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  He was
found to be mentally competent for pay purposes and to have the capacity to
understand the nature of and to cooperate in PEB proceedings.

6.  On 24 January 1991, the applicant agreed with the MEB’s findings and
recommendation.

7.  On 29 January 1991, an informal PEB found the applicant to be unfit for
service due to schizophrenia, EPTS (existed prior to service) and not
aggravated by service.  The DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)
Proceedings) is partially illegible, but it appears he was recommended for
separation without benefits.  On 1 February 1991, the applicant concurred
with the findings of the informal PEB and waived a formal hearing of his
case.

8.  On 1 March 1991, the applicant was released from active duty.
Effective        1 March 1991, he was discharged from the Army National
Guard and as a Reserve of the Army.  As of that date he had completed 18
years, 9 months, and 25 days of qualifying service for a Reserve
retirement.

9.  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 purposes of his employment on active duty.
 Under the laws governing the Army Physical Disability Evaluation system,
Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically unfitting disabilities must
meet several line of duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and
severance pay benefits.  One of the criteria is that the disability must
have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic
pay or was the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty
training.

10.  Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the Department of
Veterans Affairs to award compensation for a medical condition which was
incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

11.  Public Law 103-337, dated 5 October 1994, established early Reserve
retirement eligibility for Soldiers involuntarily separated from the
Selected Reserve due to physical disability during the period 5 October
1994 through      30 September 1999.  Eligibility was based on a minimum of
15 years of qualifying service toward Reserve Component retirement.  Title
10, U. S. Code, section 12731a(a)(1) was amended to extend the Early
Reserve Retirement Eligibility for Disabled Members to the period beginning
on 23 October 1992 and ending on     1 October 1999 to Soldiers who
attained 15 years of retirement eligibility after     1 October 1991.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Shortly after the applicant entered active duty in September 1990, he
was diagnosed with schizophrenia.  He was found to be mentally competent
for pay purposes and to have the capacity to understand the nature of and
to cooperate in PEB proceedings.  An informal PEB found him to be unfit due
to schizophrenia.  It also found that his condition had existed prior to
service (based on his 1972 and 1974 hospitalizations).  The applicant
concurred with the findings of the PEB.

2.  Based upon the applicant being found unfit for service, he was released
from active duty and discharged from the Army National Guard and the U. S.
Army Reserve effective 1 March 1991.

3.  It is acknowledged that the applicant had over 18 years of service for
a Reserve retirement at the time of his discharge; however, the provisions
for a  15-year retirement based upon disability was not passed into law
until October 1994 (and made retroactive to 23 October 1992).  Regrettably,
there is insufficient evidence to warrant granting the relief requested.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 1 March 1991; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         28 February 1994.  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

__lds___  __jtm___  __jlp___  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.




                                  __Linda D. Simmons____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002875                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060822                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |136.04                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002174C070205

    Original file (20060002174C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Examples are hereditary conditions or similar conditions in which medical authorities are in such consistent and universal agreement as to their cause and time of origin that no additional confirmation is needed to support the conclusion that they existed prior to military service. As the applicant stated in his undated letter to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070652C070402

    Original file (2002070652C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The MEB concluded that the applicant's condition originated while he was on active duty and recommended that the applicant be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060103C070421

    Original file (2001060103C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Two days later, with the pain still present, he was returned to the United States. There is no evidence to show that the applicant suffered from any condition other than back pain in Saudi Arabia.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004391

    Original file (20130004391.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 November 1992, the 102nd ARCOM Command Surgeon provided a medical review which shows the applicant: * had not attended inactive duty training (IDT) since June 1992 * was approved for Social Security disability * was diagnosed with active paranoid schizophrenia with active hallucinations * was receiving $800 per month from the VA * met the criteria of having a psychotic condition with gross impairment in reality testing, resulting in interference with duty or social adjustment, a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710210

    Original file (9710210.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her military records be corrected to show that she was separated from active duty by reason of physical disability. On 14 June 1994 she submitted an application to this Board requesting that her separation document (DD Form 214) reflect the dates that her unit served in the Persian Gulf. Accordingly, there is no basis on which to grant counsel’s request to show that she was promoted to pay grade E-5 at the time of her separation from active duty.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003079

    Original file (20150003079.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record shows that the applicant's case was thoroughly reviewed and carefully considered throughout the PDES process. Thus, there is no evidence of record to show the applicant's other medical conditions were unfitting at the time of his separation from active duty. The evidence of record shows the VA has granted the applicant disability compensation for several service-connected medical conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03093401C070212

    Original file (03093401C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Army Regulation 40-3, chapter 7, provides for MEBs, and are convened to document a service member’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the member’s medical status. Consequently, the applicant's records should be corrected to show that he transferred to the Army Reserve Control Group (Retired) effective on 3 November 1995, and that he is entitled to retirement pay at age 60 under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 12731a. As a result, the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014753

    Original file (20080014753.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 February 1992, the applicant's case was evaluated by a formal PEB that convened in Washington, D.C. On 1 September 1993, a MEB convened at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and again evaluated the applicant's case based on the return of his bipolar disorder condition. The United States Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) reviewed the applicant's case, the PEB findings and recommendations, and after careful consideration of all the medical evidence, denied the applicant's PEB...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012609C071029

    Original file (20060012609C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states the Veterans’ Board of Appeal recently established that his injury was incurred during his term of active duty; therefore, he should have been discharged for medical reasons. It is considered medical opinion that once an ACL tears it does not heal, but it remains loose. There is insufficient evidence to show the applicant’s pre-existing knee injuries were permanently aggravated during the two weeks he was on active duty before he was placed on physical profile on 31...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075977C070403

    Original file (2002075977C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that her records be corrected to show retirement because of physical disability with a 95 percent disability rating in the grade of lieutenant colonel. The applicant’s records, to include those that she herself completed and signed, dating from June 1981 to the date that she was permanently retired, show that she used her married surname even after her 1982 divorce. The evidence also suggests that she did not concur in a PEB finding to...