Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007654C070205
Original file (20060007654C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007654


      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             |
|     |Ms. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Crain                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald Lewy                   |     |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, a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that a change in his discharge is
requested due to recurring illnesses.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on
2 December 1991.  The application submitted in this case is dated 15 May
2006.

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 enlisted on 28 November 1990 for a period of 5 years.  He
successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training in
military occupational specialty 75B (personnel administrative specialist).


4.  On 21 July 1991, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for using disrespectful language.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to E-1 and a forfeiture of pay (both suspended).

5.  On 8 November 1991, the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile
of 111111.  In item 8 (Statement of Examinee’s Present Health and
Medications Currently Used) on his Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical
History), dated        8 November 1991, he reported that, “I am in good
Health.”

6.  On 19 November 1991, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 14 October 1991 to
    18 October 1991.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, a
forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

7.  On 25 November 1991, the applicant was counseled for missing formation.
8.  On 25 November 1991, the applicant was notified of his pending
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for
unsatisfactory performance.

9.  On 25 November 1991, the applicant waived his right to counsel.

10.  On 25 November 1991, the separation authority approved the
recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished
a general discharge.

11.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on
2 December 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 1 year of creditable
active service with 5 days of lost time.

12.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed
with any mental or medical condition prior to his discharge.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for
administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this
regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to
unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual
will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse
impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member
will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will
continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform
effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or
leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of
unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as
honorable or under honorable conditions.

14.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of
Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile
serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of
an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel
officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is
capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four
numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of
functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or
stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-
eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1" under all factors
indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of
medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military
assignment.

15.  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 disability
incurred while entitled to basic pay.

16.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  It states that the mere presence of an impairment
does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical
disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree
of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the
Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office,
grade, or rank.  It states that disability compensation is not an
entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury;
rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they
can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical
disability incurred or aggravated in service.  When a Soldier is being
processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability,
continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or
grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement indicates
that a Soldier is fit.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination on 8 November 1991 and was found qualified for separation by
competent medical authorities with a physical profile of 111111.  The
applicant also reported that he was in good health at that time.  There is
no medical evidence of record that shows the applicant had any mental or
medical condition prior to his release from active duty on 2 December 1991.
 There is also no evidence of record to show he was ever medically unfit to
perform his duties.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting a medical
discharge.

2.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error now
under consideration on 2 December 1991; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 1
December 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

WC_____  _AM____  ___DL___  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.




                                  __William Crain____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060007654                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061130                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022360

    Original file (20120022360.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A medical record, dated 25 March 1981, states if a pneumothorax recurs he should be medically discharged from the military at that time. The applicant provides service medical records. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007237

    Original file (20080007237.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. There is no medical evidence of record that shows the applicant had any medical condition prior to her release from active duty on 16 May 1994. There is also no evidence of record to show she was ever medically unfit to perform her duties.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016931

    Original file (20130016931.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Service medical records * VA medical records CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical fitness), chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) provides that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003447C070205

    Original file (20060003447C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Rowland Heflin | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Although the applicant contends that he was never supposed to be sent to Vietnam with a “P-3” and “U-3” medical profile, evidence of record shows he served in Vietnam (from 21 July 1966 through 17 July 1967) prior to receiving a physical profile of “3” under physical capacity or stamina and a physical profile of “3” under upper extremities on 26 September 1967....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012549

    Original file (20110012549.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board finds the applicant fit by presumption. Paragraph E3.P3.5.3 (Overcoming the Presumption) of DODI 1332.38 states the presumption of fitness rule shall be overcome when: a. an acute, grave illness or injury occurs within the presumptive period that would prevent the member from performing further duty if he or she were not retiring; or b. a serious deterioration of a previously-diagnosed condition, to include a chronic condition, occurs within the presumptive period and the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006136

    Original file (20090006136.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that he needs a medical discharge because of his feet. On 15 December 1989, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. Since there is no evidence of record to show the applicant was ever medically unfit to perform his military duties, there is no basis for granting a medical discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004294

    Original file (20090004294.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. There is no evidence to show that the applicant could not perform his duties while on active duty. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show a medical retirement was warranted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002181

    Original file (20110002181.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show a medical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086907C070212

    Original file (2003086907C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also requests that his military records be corrected to reflect his promotion to staff sergeant/E-6. The Disabled American Veterans, as counsel for the applicant, requests that the Board evaluate all pertinent evidence to include the applicant's service medical records and the DVA case file. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was diagnosed with a mental illness prior to his discharge on 13 August 1999.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012985

    Original file (20110012985.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his record to show he was medically separated. A physical profile designator of "2" under any or all factors indicates that an individual possesses some medical condition or physical defect that may require some activity limitations. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be...