IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 18 FEBRUARY 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080017459
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 that his separation code on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from "JFV" to "JDR" and that his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed from a "3" to a "1."
2. The applicant states that when he enlisted, he received tests that showed that his left kidney was non-functioning and he was ultimately discharged based on that conclusion. However, on 17 October 2008, he received a test which is much more accurate that the test he received when he enlisted and it shows that his left kidney is functioning, which indicates that the previous conclusion was in error. He also states that after years of no kidney problems and with the lack of financial ability, it has taken years for him to afford a private test. He continues by stating that his separation and RE codes were based on that error and should be changed.
3. The applicant provides a copy of a DD Form 214 and a medical report from Signet Diagnostics in Orange Park, Florida.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. 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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in Miami, Florida, on 17 January 2001 for a period of 8 years under the delayed entry program. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 January 2001 for a period of 4 years, training under the airborne infantry training option and a cash enlistment bonus ($18,000).
3. He completed all of his training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for assignment to the 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment.
4. On 17 September 2001, the applicant underwent an ultrasound-main at Womack Army Medical Center (WAMC) which indicated that the applicant's right kidney was normal and that his left kidney was not documented on ultrasound examination.
5. On 1 October 2001, he underwent a computed tomography (also known as a CAT scan) which indicated that the applicant's left kidney was remarkably atrophic with a thin rim of enhancing cortex. The right kidney showed findings of secondary compensatory hypertrophy with a craniocaudal length of approximately 13cm.
6. On 28 November 2001, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-17, for other designated physical or mental conditions. He further specified that the reason for his actions was the applicant's being diagnosed as having only one functioning kidney which interfered with his ability to perform his military duties. The applicant concurred with the proposed separation action.
7. On 28 November 2001, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that he be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
8. On 7 December 2001, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, due to a physical condition, not a disability. He was issued a separation code of "JFV" and an RE code of "3."
9. The document submitted by the applicant regarding the question of the functioning of his left kidney indicates that the left kidney shows delayed opacification. It is hypoplastic and measures 6.9 centimeters. The right kidney measures 16.5 centimeters in length. The impression was that the applicant had a hypoplastic left kidney with compensatory hypertrophy of the right. Function of the left kidney is slightly delayed and diminished compared to the right.
10. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned separation and RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment processing into the Regular Army and the USAR. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior-service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.
11. RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. A waiting period of 2 years from separation is required before a waiver may be submitted through a local recruiting office.
12. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), provides the separation codes that are to be entered on the DD Form 214. It provides, in pertinent part, that separation code "JFV" will be used for enlisted personnel being separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 due to a physical disability - not a disability. There is no listing for a separation code of "JDR."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicants rights.
2. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 and was properly issued an RE code of RE-3 in accordance with the applicable regulations.
3. The document submitted by the applicant clearly shows that his left kidney is dramatically smaller than his right kidney and that it is operating at a diminished capacity. The report essentially confirms the diagnoses made at WAMC that led to his administrative discharge.
4. The applicants contentions have been noted. However, there are procedures whereby the applicant can apply to a local recruiter for a waiver of his RE code if he is, in fact, physically qualified and the needs of the Army at the time justify his return to service.
5. Additionally, there is no separation code of "JDR" and his current separation code correctly reflects the basis for his separation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show that he was not properly separated, there appears to be no basis to grant his request.
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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
__________XXX_______________
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) AR20080017459
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080017459
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019042
The applicant provides a copy of DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) dated 7 November 2001, the Record of Proceedings for Docket Number AR20080017459, and a personal letter as new evidence in support of his application. The differentiation in the size of the kidney organ is known, what is unclear is that in 2001 military medical authorities indicated the applicant's kidney did not function. The evidence of record shows the applicant's RE code was assigned based on his discharge...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00863
I then went before the formal board and received 10% with a disability code of 7121 which allows up to 30% disability rating which would have allowed me to retire.” In block 14 of the DD Form 294 he notes: “The following is the VA decision on disability: I was rated at 60% disabled with the following determinations: Right Kidney Cortical Atrophy with Compensatory Left Kidney Hypertrophy with Residual Thinning & Scarring, Aortic Valve Insufficiency with Regurgitation, Mitral Valve...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00595
Cardiac Condition. The PEB and VA rated the cardiac condition under different codes which have the same rating criteria IAW §4.104. The PEB rated the cardiac condition 10%, 7000 valvular heart disease, citing requirement for continuous medication (Coumadin).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020375
She requested the board find her fit for duty for her delusional disorder. She stated that just because she was not being provided her medical documentation did not mean she was not pregnant. a. Dr. Rose noted the applicant: * complained of abdominal pain * refused examination, wouldn't get undressed * was uncooperative * stated she was pregnant b. Dr. R___ indicated the applicant tested negative on a pregnancy test and that she was delusional.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00919
At the MEB examination on 14 January 2002, 4 months prior to separation, the CI reported that he had a history of a lacerated kidney and crushed lung. The Board noted that the CI described he gets flank pain only with exertion and the MEB and C&P examinations showed only mild flank pain on the latter examination. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DAF Acting Director Physical Disability Board of...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00277
ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Pericarditis with Exercise Limiting Chest Pain Secondary to Acute Viral Myopericarditis Chronic Serous Pericarditis70020%Post-viral Cardiomyopathy w/Recurring Atrial Fibrillation7099-702010%*20050802History of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Medically ControlledNot Unfitting↓No Additional MEB/PEB Entries↓PTSD941130%**STR0% x 0/Not Service Connected x 2 Combined: 0%Combined: 40%*** *Post-viral Cardiomyopathy w/Recurring Atrial Fibrillation...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01149
The Informal PEB adjudicated “exertional chest pain” as unfitting, rated 10% with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01785
Low Back Mechanical Pain Condition . The Board first considered VASRD codes 7533 (cystic diseases of the kidneys) -5295 (lumbosacral strain), using the VASRD rating in effect at the time of separation.The Board did not find evidence in the record of “muscle spasm on extreme forward bending, or any loss of lateral spine motion, unilateral, in standing position,” for a higher 20% rating in the CI’s favor. The evidence pointed to a contribution to the LBP and aggravationsof low back pain with...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01686
The Board’s role is thus confined to the review of medical records and all evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, compared to Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and, to review those fitness determinations within its scope (as elaborated above) consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation. IAW DoDI 6040.44, this Board must consider the appropriate rating for the CI’s back condition at separation based on the VASRD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08319-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating at the time of separation or retirement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...