Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006260
Original file (20070006260.txt) Auto-classification: Denied


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	   25 September 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006260 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William Powers

Chairperson

Ms. LaVerne Douglas

Member

Mr. Jerome 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 that her discharge be charged to reflect her medical unfitness for continued service due to her medical conditions. 

2.  The applicant states, in pertinent part, that her discharge does not reflect the circumstance under which she was forced to withdraw from the United States Military Academy (USMA).  Medical doctors at West Point determined she was medically unfit for service and she believes her discharge should reflect their medical opinion.  She further states, that her type of discharge and its characterization impedes her attempts to seek disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her discharge document with a separation date of 1 February 1990, a medical narrative summary from her Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD) initial examination, a current medical evaluation from her treating physician, and a copy of a letter she wrote to her Senator.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant entered the USMA on 1 July 1986.  

2.  The applicant provided a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows she separated on 1 February 1990 with a characterization of service as under honorable conditions (general discharge) and the reason for her separation was Dropped from the Rolls (DFR). The DD Form 214 she submitted shows she was not available for signature when separated.   

3.  Item 18 of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows the entry "Item 12c includes service as a Cadet at USMA from 860701 to 900201 and is not creditable for commissioned service." 

4.  Neither the applicant's discharge packet nor her cadet personnel service and attendance records were available for the Board to review. 

5.  The applicant provided a copy of Standard Form 502 (Narrative Summary (Clinical Resume) which shows that she was evaluated by a medical doctor in the rank of lieutenant colonel for pain in her right tibia.  The medical exam was for the MEBD and it is undated.  The medical examiner stated, in effect, the applicant, a 4th class cadet (freshman), injured her right leg in a track and field event two years ago which aggravated a previous stress fracture or stress reaction that occurred while a high school student prior to her entrance into the USMA.  The resulting treatments while a cadet revealed no significant physical findings, and found the patient had a full range of motion of both her lower extremities and a normal range of motion in her ankle.  No abnormal masses were found.  The applicant's right tibia did exhibit medial tenderness when direct pressure was applied during the examination.  The examining physician found that the applicant's pain in her right tibia was secondary to an old stress fracture that had healed with local scarring and it was classified as existing prior to her entry into service (EPTS).  The examining physician found the applicant unfit for medical service in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).  He also stated that she did not "feel she was capable of completing the training at West Point and that she would like a year of rehabilitation and possible surgery to remove any scar tissue."

6.  There are no MEBD or Physical Evaluation Board documents available for the Board to review.  

7.  The applicant provided a letter dated 21 April 2007 from her treating physician, which states, in pertinent part, that the applicant is suffering from widespread myofascial pain syndrome in her lower extremities.  He writes that the applicant's onset of pain was in high school when she had recurrent shin splints, and then was aggravated by her physical training at West Point.  Currently she now has pain in her lower back and shoulders to include her entire lower extremity with a loss of tissue integrity.  She currently walks with a cane and has had to leave civilian employment due to her physical limitations.  

8.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation states, in pertinent part, that general and miscellaneous conditions and physical defects resulting in interference with satisfactory performance of duty as substantiated by the individual's commander or supervisor shall be considered for separation from military service for physical unfitness or the inability to perform the physical duties of soldiering.  

9.  The Department of Defense Pay Manual (DODPM), paragraph 10101p, states that service as a cadet or midshipman is creditable in computing basic pay of 
enlisted members.  In accordance with Table 1-1-1 of this manual, service in any of the military academies for cadets and midshipmen who were appointed after 25 June 1956 is not creditable.  

10.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability, provides for the medical retirement and for the discharge for physical unfitness, with severance pay, of soldiers who incur a physical disability in the line of duty while serving on active or inactive duty.  However, the disability must have been the proximate result of performing military duty.  Section 1217 of this title states that chapter 61 does not apply to cadets at the USMA.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her discharge should be changed to a medical discharge as the medical doctors at USMA found her medically unfit for continued service.  The medical evaluation provided by the applicant herself shows that she did not want to continue with her training at USMA as she "did not feel that she was capable of completing the training."

2.  The applicant, although a member of the USAR by virtue of her enrollment at USMA, had no duty status unless she was commissioned and entered on active duty; she was not commissioned and did not enter active duty.  She was separated and the reason noted on her DD Form 214 was DFR or absent without leave in excess of 30 consecutive days.  

3.  The applicant is not entitled to medical separation with separation pay or with placement on the retired list per statutory guidance because she was a cadet.  Cadets of USMA are not entitled to medical separation for physical disability.  She entered USMA from a civilian status and both the military medical treating officer and her current medical doctor state her injuries were from a prior condition that occurred while in high school and not while in the status of cadet.  Therefore, she is not entitled to change her discharge to a medical separation. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__WP ___  __LD ___  __JP____  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





_____William Powers________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070006260
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070925
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
145.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010120

    Original file (20080010120.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his case, the best evidence is Doctor D___’s 6 November 2007 physical examination report, which notes the required symptoms for 10 percent ratings for his neck and back. The applicant states that Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-2(a)(5), states, “In the absence of such proof by the preponderance of the evidence, reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the Soldier.” In his case, even assuming that all four medical reports were valid and based on actual examinations, the PEB...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070019029

    Original file (20070019029.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The BTO indicated that if the applicant failed any portions of his Army minimums during his retest, he would recommend separation proceedings be initiated against him under the provisions of paragraph 10.24 Regulation, USMA and he could be required to reimburse the U.S. Government for the cost of his education. He was separated for failing 3 APFTs. The advisory opinion stated the applicant was well aware that failure to meet fitness standards for both the Army and USMA could lead to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013365

    Original file (20090013365.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that her physical evaluation board (PEB) findings be corrected to show she was found unfit under the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 5289 and 5288, that her disability rating be corrected to show 50 percent, and that she be medically retired due to her increased disability rating. She was rated under the VASRD and given a 10-percent disability rating for codes 5299-5295. Records provided by the VA indicate the applicant...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018505

    Original file (20080018505.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    As such, the PEB did not rate those conditions. Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 7-2, provides that an individual may be placed on the TDRL (for the maximum period of 5 years which is allowed by Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1210) when it is determined that the individual’s physical disability is not stable and he or she may recover and be fit for duty, or the individual’s disability is not stable and the degree of severity may change within the next 5 years so as to change the disability...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01269

    Original file (PD-2012-01269.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. Post-Separation) Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam Bilateral Lower Extremity Stress Reactions 5099- 5003 0% Stress Fracture, Left Lower Extremity 5299-5260 Not Service Connected 20040406 Stress Fracture, Right Lower Extremity 5299-5260 Not...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01015

    Original file (PD2010-01015.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the MEB examination, 25 August 2004, just under three months prior to separation, the CI noted that her pain was aggravated by standing and sitting and that she had swelling at the ankle and pain at the knee incision site. Board considered use of the 5262 code for malunion of the tibia and fibula with ankle impairment as it also described the medical condition including the pain which affected ankle function. Accordingly, the Board cannot use both code 8520 and 5262 for the right lower...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016880

    Original file (20060016880.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Nonetheless, the make-up APFT was recorded as a failure and the applicant was recommended for separation by the Commandant of Cadets on 17 December 2004 under the provisions of Army Regulation 210-26 for failure to meet APFT standards. These documents are not of importance to Mr. [the applicant’s name] because all information that is pertinent to Mr. [the applicant’s name] separation and recoupment action for failure to pass the APFT has already been released.” Considering that the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02208

    Original file (PD-2013-02208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The NARSUM noted bilateral lower leg pain associated with exertion, and some tenderness in the right lower leg, absence of atrophy, weakness and tropic changes. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100006988

    Original file (20100006988.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests her military records be corrected to show her injuries to her ankles, right shoulder, back, right elbow, and right knee were incurred in the line of duty. The profile referred the applicant to a Non-Duty Related Physical Evaluation Board (NDR-PEB). c. Army Regulation 635-40 states, in pertinent part, that when a commander or other proper authority believes that a Soldier not on extended active duty is unable to perform the duties of his or her grade or rank because...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017379

    Original file (20090017379.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She did note on her DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) that she was having trouble sleeping and she was mildly depressed due to her leg pain. The examining physician noted her depression was situational anxiety due to the MEBD process. The applicant provided no evidence of error in the MEBD or PEB process.