RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 20 March 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011009
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. Gerard W. Schwartz
Acting Director
Mr. Andrew C. Jacobs
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Ms. Kathleen Newman
Chairperson
Mr. David Haasenritter
Member
Ms. LaVerne 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 denial to upgrade his general discharge.
2. The applicant essentially states that he is attaching medical evidence which was not previously submitted. He also states that he was not a rehab failure.
3. The applicant provides the following in support of this application:
a. an undated, self-authored letter;
b. a Standard Form (SF) 513 (Consultation Sheet) from November 1981;
c. Medical Records Progress Notes from 2003; and
d. three DA Forms 4465 (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program [ADAPCP] Military Client Intake and Follow-up Record).
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 AR20050015019, on 6 July 2006.
2. The applicant provided an SF 513 from November 1981, which essentially shows that he was evaluated for vision problems. He described the problems by stating that he saw black dots, cloud-like images, and spider-webbing for the past one and a half years. This document also states, in pertinent part, that he was an admitted amphetamine abuser for the past one and a half years as well. The consulting physician determined through an external eye examination that the applicant had no eye pathology.
3. In Medical Records Progress Notes from 2003, a note indicated, in pertinent part, that the applicant might have ophthalmologic migraines.
4. The applicant provided three DA Forms 4465, which he essentially pointed out that in his commanding officers opinion, his efficiency and conduct were fair in January 1981, and that his efficiency was fair and his conduct was good in March and April 1981. It should be noted that, from highest to lowest, the level of ratings that his commanding officer has to choose from were excellent, good, fair, and unsatisfactory.
5. The applicant disagreed with the previous record of proceedings by stating that he was not a rehab failure. However, it was the applicant himself who made the handwritten statement in May 1982 that, I have been in trouble with drinking before and a (rehab) failure at least three times now, which the analyst on the original ABCMR case was referring to.
6. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. This regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that the denial to upgrade his general discharge should be reconsidered.
2. Although the applicant provided an SF 513 which shows that he had vision problems, and was seeing black dots, cloud-like images, and spider-webbing for the past one and a half years while in the military, this document also clearly shows that he was an admitted amphetamine abuser during the same time frame. Also, the consulting physician determined through an external eye examination that the applicant had no eye pathology.
3. Although the applicant provided Medical Records Progress Notes from 2003 which stated that he might have ophthalmologic migraines, there is no evidence in his military records which conclusively shows that this condition existed while he was on active duty.
4. The three DA Forms 4465 in which the applicants commanding officer rated his efficiency as a fair once and his conduct as good twice, does nothing to support the applicants request for reconsideration. Neither does it establish a basis for the upgrade of his discharge.
5. The fact that the applicant himself declared, in his own handwriting, that he was a rehab failure at least three times was the reason the analyst in the applicants original ABCMR case made such a statement.
6. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting relief to the applicant in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___KA __ ___DH___ __LD ___ 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 AR20050015019, dated 6 July 2006.
____Kathleen Newman______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060011009
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070320
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
AR 15-185
ISSUES 1.
144.0135.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00852
SEPARATION DATE: 20081105 The commander’s statement on 20 May 2008 confirmed this statement.Although he was unable to drive at night and experienced difficulty focusing on objects due to spots in his vision, he continued “to perform all of his primary in-garrison military duties without restrictions, minimal limitations or work-a-rounds.”A follow-up note on 4 August 2008 (3 months prior to separation) indicated the CI’s condition was “stable on treatment.”The final STR note in evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000113
The applicant and his counsel contend that the applicant's military records should be corrected to show he was diagnosed with unfitting conditions that were incurred during military service and are combat-related, and that he was placed on the PDRL with a disability rating of at least 30-percent. There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant's medical conditions (individually or in combination) were medically unfitting for retention under the provisions of Army Regulation...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00654
At TDRL placement, the PEB adjudicated the CI’s headache condition at 10% coded 8045-9304 (brain disease due to trauma, purely subjective).The PEB documented that the CI’s headaches required him to go home from work twice a week, but that he was still able to work 30 hours a week.The VA rated the condition of chronic headaches, coded 8100 (migraine). The FPEB, under code 6081, rated the condition at 10%, and noted the condition was stable but prevented the return to active duty.The Board...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01506
The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.The Informal PEB rated the right eye injury 10% using the code 6090-6079 (diplopia-Vision in one eye 20/100 and other eye 20/40) noting aphakia, correctable with a contact lens, post-operative residual diplopia, and visual acuity 20/70 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left eye. X-rays dated 27 August 2003 for lower back pain with a normal examination and without a neurological deficit were reported to be...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02321
The eye conditions, characterized as “mild traumatic cataract,” “decreased vision,” and “cystoid macular edema” of the left eye, were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEBcombined the MEB diagnoses as a single unfitting condition, rated 10% under criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board also acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the occupational impediments due to his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019747
The physician's review and analysis of the TSGLI application is summarized below: * the physician thoroughly reviewed the case in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) which contained more medical notes and documents than the applicant submitted in support of his claim * only one eye examination not prior to the claimed traumatic event was recorded in AHLTA, written on 20 August 2007, documenting his hypermetropia (one eye with significantly worse vision than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012131
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to an honorable discharge. Paragraph 5-11 provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entrance on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01341
SEPARATION DATE: 20041104 At theophthalmology examination performed on 30 October 2003, the CI was unable to count fingers at ten inches in front of his left eye and at following ophthalmology examination dated 3 November 2003; theexaminer opined that current objective eye findings, non-physiologic vision loss could be a factor.Anophthalmology consultation dated 10 December 2003, noted the CI’s subjective complaint of inability to see from the left eye and also that “exams indicate vision...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002375
The applicant states he was discharged for weight control failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 18, but he injured his left eye in January 2005. b. Paragraph 3-16e states vision that cannot be corrected with ordinary spectacle lenses to at least 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye or 20/30 in one eye and 20/200 in the other eye, or 20/20 in one eye and 20/800 in the other eye are causes for referral to an...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00664
The PEB adjudicated the idiopathic monocular exercise-induced vision/visual field loss condition as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In July 2007, the CI noted transient inferior visual field loss during exertion and sometimes complete loss of vision in his right eye, much more than the left eye. Service Treatment Record