Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016055
Original file (20080016055.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  22 January 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080016055 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request to change his honorable discharge to a medical discharge.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he disagrees with the Army's policy and procedures for the initiation, maintenance, and disposition of military personnel discipline files.  He states he was not given follow up care for his injured left wrist strain.  He states there would have been no problem with his attitude if he had not been medically neglected and exposed to racial slurs.  He states he had no personal or family problems at the time of his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides two statements with multiple signatures in support of his request for reconsideration.

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 AR20080004943, on 3 July 2008.

2.  In the original findings, the ABCMR determined there was insufficient evidence to change the applicant's honorable discharge to a medical discharge.

3.  The two statements submitted by the applicant are new evidence which require that his case be reconsidered by the ABCMR.
4.  The applicant submitted a statement, dated 21 July 2008, with 20 signatures, wherein the signatories contend they know the applicant personally, and they know the applicant did not have any personal and/or family problems during his service in the U.S Army in 1974.

5.  The applicant submitted a second statement, dated 21 July 2008, with 
16 signatures wherein the signatories contend they know for a fact the applicant sustained injuries during his service in the U.S. Army in 1974 and that he was deprived of continued medical care for his injuries which became a racial ordeal which resulted in his desire to leave the Army.  The signatories also contend that the applicant is still frequently tormented by this.

6.  On 29 August 1974, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed honorable discharge action.  He indicated that he did not desire to have a separation medical examination if the discharge action was approved.

7.  On a DA Form 3082-R (Statement of Medical Condition), dated 23 September 1974, the applicant indicated that his medical condition had changed but he did not indicate how it had changed.

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board (MEBD).  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The statement submitted by the applicant wherein the signatories contend the applicant had no personal and/or family problems was considered.  However, whether or not the applicant had personal and or family problems had no bearing on whether the applicant received an honorable discharge or a medical discharge.



2.  The statement submitted by the applicant wherein the signatories contend the applicant sustained injuries while in the service and he was deprived of follow up care was considered.  However, there is no indication or evidence that any of the signatories were present at the time of his injury or during the period he maintains he was not receiving follow up care.  Therefore, it is concluded this statement was made based on a history provided by the applicant to those signatories.

3.  A medical examination given at time of separation determines whether or not an individual is physically qualified for separation.  The applicant indicated that he did not desire a separation medical examination.  Therefore, there is no evidence the applicant suffered from a medical condition that may have warranted consideration by a MEBD at the time.

4.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant has not submitted any evidence that he had a medical condition which would have warranted him being considered by a MEBD.  Without an MEBD, there would have been no basis for referring him to a PEB.  Without a PEB, the applicant could not have been issued a medical discharge or retired for physical unfitness.

5.  The applicant's expressions of disagreement with the Army policies and procedures for the initiation, maintenance, and disposition of military personnel discipline files does not constitute new argument in his case.  The applicant provided no evidence or official documentation of his contention that he was discharged because of prejudice/racial malice.

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 that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ____X___  ___X___  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 AR20080004943, dated 3 July 2008.




      _______ _ X  _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080016055



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080016055



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005084

    Original file (20090005084.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his application, the application provides copies of his DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), his Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD) Narrative Summary with several Standard Forms 600 (Health Record – Chronological Record of Medical Care) and letters of support from his family in support of his medical retirement, his MEBD Consultation, his PEB proceedings, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and a letter from the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013124

    Original file (20090013124.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB determined that the applicant remained unfit, awarded him a 10-percent disability rating, and recommended separation from the Army with entitlement to severance pay. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating at least 30 percent. The evidence of record shows the applicant sustained a back injury and subsequently underwent an MEBD which recommended he be given a PEB.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004943

    Original file (20080004943.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states, in effect, his discharge wasn’t issued for the reason stated in the attached letters dated 29 August 1974 and 13 September 1974. The applicant’s contention he should have been issued a medical discharge and/or discharged for medical reasons is not supported by the evidence.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016322

    Original file (20070016322.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states that the applicant forwarded a request to the DVA to have his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) corrected based on service-connected disability for PTSD due to his service in the Republic of Vietnam. Counsel then examines the applicant’s military medical records and argues that the results of these examinations would require the applicant to be considered by a medical board which, counsel contends, would have led to the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013490

    Original file (20080013490.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD) be corrected to have it show that his conversion disorder was incurred in line of duty as a direct result of conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war, as defined by Title 26, U.S. Code, section 104. The PEB added that the applicant's retirement was not based on disability from injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurring in the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001082

    Original file (20090001082.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    e. The applicant states that the supporting documents he provides show that these medical conditions existed at the time he was an active duty Soldier; however, the MEBD/PEB did not consider them. On 7 February 2006, the MEBD was provided to the PEB and did not contain the 17 January 2006 information; however, he offers that the applicant’s medical records that were sent with the MEBD may have included the documents. Since there is no evidence of record to show that the applicant's medical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010266

    Original file (20090010266.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He further included a copy of a Report of Medical Board at the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, dated 12 May 2005, which shows a diagnosis of chronic PTSD; major depression; and healing third degree burns on all extremities, face and scalp, and diabetes. The TDRL approving authority reviewed the applicant’s comments and concurred with the TDRL findings on 7 January 2008; d. on 10 January 2008, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for a variety of conditions and rated him at 80% and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010165

    Original file (20090010165.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of her records to show she was medically discharged instead of honorably released from active duty. Additionally, there is no evidence in the applicant’s records that indicate she underwent a medical evaluation board (MEBD) or a physical evaluation board (PEB). Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014353

    Original file (20080014353.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The physician found the sleeping and depressive problems related only to his pain that he was experiencing and noted on the DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) that this neurologic and psychiatric evaluations were considered normal. The opinion further stated that on 4 March 2005 an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for back and pelvic pain and rated the pain under VASRD code 5237, lumbosacral pain, at 10 percent, separate with severance pay. The medical evidence of record...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009128

    Original file (20090009128 .txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of specialist four/SP4 on 12 April 1974. Based on the evidence of record, the applicant was evaluated by an MEBD and then a PEB which placed him on the TDRL. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was permanently retired with 70-percent disability in the grade of SP4/E-4 on 20 March 1974.