BOARD DATE:	  25 May 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100007194 


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 approval of his request for extension on active duty from 30 March to 31 May 2009.

2.  The applicant states that he was dropped from active duty orders while still under military medical treatment and associated recovery periods.  He contends that:

   a.   he had multiple surgeries, back-to-back, at the end of his active duty tour;
   
   b.  on 25 March 2009, he requested an extension of his active duty orders because of medical treatment;
   
   c.  on 27 March 2009, before the end date of his orders, he was referred to Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) for evaluation and treatment based on the doctor’s discovery of a mole;
   
   d.  the Armed Forces Inauguration Committee (AFIC) never responded to the request for extension of his Reserve orders, dated 25 March 2009;
   
   e.  an email dated 27 March 2009 indicates that his Reserve orders were to be extended for the recovery of his first surgery, but they were never published; and


   f.  his skin cancer was unknown as of 27 March 2009.  He argues that an extension of his orders for recovery from his first surgery would have subsequently included his cancer treatment.

3.  The applicant provides copies of congressional correspondence; a memorandum from the G1 (Personnel) Medical Policy Officer and his e-mail response; Orders, dated 24 April 2008; seven Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 2, 13, 23, 24, and 27 March 2009 and 6 and 13 May 2009; two DA Forms 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), dated 4 March and 6 May 2009; Request from applicant for extension of reserve orders, dated 25 March 2009; Memorandum from applicant’s physician requesting extension of reserve orders, dated 25 March 2009; e-mail responses to requests to extend reserve orders, dated 25 and 27 March 2009; applicant’s request to the Office of the Surgeon General for extension of his reserve orders, dated 15 September 2009; three requests for convalescent leave; and a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 4 March 2009.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Orders A-04-807699, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St Louis, MO (HRC-STL), dated 24 April 2008, ordered the applicant, a 57-year old Army National Guard colonel, to active duty for operational support of the Presidential inauguration.  He was assigned to the AFIC during the period 1 May 2008 through 29 March 2009.  The additional instructions stated that all processing to include transition leave must be completed before the expiration of these orders.

2.  An SF 600, dated 2 March 2009, states that in March 2008 the applicant received a cardiac stent.  Within 24 hours following this procedure, he noted a left scrotal enlargement and increasing discomfort.  On 25 July 2009, the applicant elected to proceed with a surgical procedure to reduce left hydrocle (serious tumor and/or accumulation of fluid).  This procedure was postponed until 4 March 2009 based on a cardiology evaluation concerning his recent stent.  The applicant was released without limitations.  He was to follow-up in the urology clinic at WRAMC.

3.  An SF 600, dated 13 March 2009, states that the physician, Urology Clinic, WRAMC, left a telephonic message advising the applicant to call for a follow up appointment.   

4.  An SF 600, dated 23 March 2009, Urology Clinic, WRAMC, states that the applicant was healing well.  He was instructed to apply moist heat and to continue his pain medicine.  He was released without limitations and instructed to follow up with the Urology Clinic as needed.
5.  An SF 600, dated 24 March 2009, Community Health, Dewitt Army Hospital, states that the applicant presented himself complaining that he needed his mobilization orders extended and potentially assigned to the Warrior Transition Unit (WTU).  He had surgery while on orders and had some [unspecified] complications.  He was sent to the Commander, WTU for assistance.  He was released without limitations.

6.  In a letter from the applicant to the Commander, U.S. Army Garrison (USAG), Fort Myer, VA, dated 25 March 2009 he requested an extension of his active duty orders from 29 March to 1 May 2009.  Attached to this request was a memorandum from his physician recommending a period of convalescent leave ending on 2 April 2009.  The applicant also wanted 17 days of ordinary leave that he was not able to take while on active duty and was not eligible to cash in at separation, and 10 working days for out-processing.

7.  An e-mail, dated 27 March 2009, from the J1 (Personnel) AFIC, informed the applicant that his orders would be extended to provide for his convalescent leave ending on 2 April 2009; for out-processing from 3 to 7 April 2009; assignment to his Troop Program Unit from 8 to 10 April 2009; and for transitional leave from
11 to 27 April 2009.

8.  An SF 600, dated 27 March 2009, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, states that the applicant was referred to WRAMC for evaluation and treatment of a benign skin neoplasm pigmented nevus (mole).  He was released without limitations.

9.  SF 600, dated 6 May 2009, NNMC, Bethesda, states that the applicant underwent an operation to remove a malignant skin cancer basal cell carcinoma (BCC).  The procedure was in an outpatient status.  He was released that same day without limitations.  He was instructed on the care of the surgical site and to follow up in 14 days to have the sutures removed.

10.  An SF 600, dated 13 May 2009, NNMC, Bethesda, states that the applicant was informed via a telephonic consultation that the BCC was fully excised and no further therapy was needed.  It stated that the applicant was doing well.  He was to follow up on 20 May 2009 to have the sutures removed.

11.  Orders 152-0001, USAG, Fort Belvoir, VA, dated 1 June 2009, released the applicant from active duty effective 29 March 2009, and transferred him to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement).

12.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 29 March 2009 shows he was released from active duty due to completion of required active service.  He had completed
10 months and 29 days of creditable active duty service during this period of service.

13.  In a letter, dated 19 August 2009, the G-3 (Operations), HRC-STL informed the applicant’s Congressman that after a careful review of the applicant’s active duty for operational support orders, dated 24 April 2008, it was determined that he was not placed on extension orders for medical care.  Furthermore, he was not placed in the active duty medical evaluation program.  HRC-STL had not received a request to extend the applicant’s orders or to request entry into the medical program.  The G3 advised that the applicant should submit copies of his orders, DA Form 2173, and DA Form 3349 to the Office of The Surgeon General for a determination on the adjustment of his orders.

14.  Two DA Forms 2173, both dated 14 September 2009 and signed by the Director of Personnel, shows that the applicant’s surgeries on 4 March and 
6 May 2009 were both in the line of duty.

	a.  On 10 March 2009, while still on convalescent leave from his 4 March operation, infection set in and the applicant was rushed to WRAMC with severe scrotal pain.  He was given antibiotics for 3 days and released on 12 March 2009.

	b.  On 27 March 2009, the applicant was to have an open sore on his left shoulder examined after several months of not healing.  The physician was concerned that he might have skin cancer and advised him to make an appointment for a complete screening.  An early April 2009 screening was conducted.  He was diagnosed with a BCC and underwent an operation on
6 May 2009 and had the sutures removed on 13 May 2009.

15.  On 15 September 2009, the applicant submitted a request for amendment of his active duty orders to extend his service from 29 March to 31 May 2009.  This request went through The Office of the Surgeon General to the HRC-STL.  He based this request on his recent medical care.

16.  In a letter, dated 8 October 2009, the G-3 (Operations), HRC-STL informed the applicant’s Congressman that The Office of the Surgeon General had received the applicant’s request and determined that he did not meet the requirements for the active duty medical evaluation program.

17.  On 29 October 2009, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 (Personnel), informed the Commander, HRC-STL, that the applicant was not authorized coverage on an active duty order for the time specified in his request.  The applicant was released without limitations by his health care provider on 
23 March 2009, which was within the time coverage of his orders to active duty.  The additional medical care that was given to the applicant occurred after his orders had ended.  In accordance with the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) this situation did not qualify for an order to cover this timeframe because he was not under the command and control of any military leadership.  The applicant was advised that he had the option of appealing the G-1 decision to this Board.

18.  On 30 October 2009, the G-3, HRC-STL sent the applicant’s Congressman a letter informing him of the G-1 determination.

19.  In an e-mail, dated 14 November 2009, from the applicant to the G-1, the applicant argued that the G-1 was wrong in determining that:

   a.  the additional medical care was not pursued until after the end date of his orders; and

   b.  there was no evidence showing a request for orders to cover additional time due to medical care.

20.  The applicant also argued that the AFIC staff and the National Capitol Region (NCR) organization was at fault for his active duty not being extended in a timely manner.  He concluded in his e-mail that he should not be denied authorized [medical] coverage and financial benefits because of AFIC and NCR misgivings.

21.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) paragraph 2-9 provides that the Board 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 his military records should be corrected to show that he was continued on active duty as a Reserve officer from 30 March to 
31 May 2009 for the purpose of receiving medical care.

2.  The available evidence clearly shows that the applicant was released by his health care provider on 23 March 2009, without limitations, and he was on convalescent leave until his release from active duty on 29 March 2009.

3.  On 25 March 2009, the applicant submitted a request to the Commander, USAG, Fort Myer, wherein he requested extension on active duty for the purpose of completing his convalescence, out-processing his unit, and for using the balance of his accrued ordinary leave.  Although an e-mail indicated his request would be approved, the available evidence is insufficient for determining the outcome of this request.

4.  On 27 March 2009, the applicant went to the health clinic where he was examined and referred to WRAMC for evaluation of a mole.  On 6 May 2009, well after his release from active duty, he underwent an out-patient medical procedure to remove the mole, which was determined to be a BCC.

5.  The G-1 determined that the applicant was not authorized coverage on an active duty order for his later medical conditions as he was not under the ordinary command and control of any military command leadership.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

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.



      __________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)                                         AR20100007194



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings