IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  7 December 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100013200 


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, in effect, reconsideration of his previous request for correction of his records to show he was discharged due to medical reasons.

2.  The applicant states:

* He should have been discharged due to injuries he received in a car accident which is documented in his medical records
* He was not in grade "A" condition when he was discharged because of the bone that his missing in his right lower jaw, the pin in his left femur, and the wire that is still in his face
* There are inaccuracies in the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) - Record of Proceedings, dated 2 February 2010
* He was assigned to the U.S. Army Hospital at Fort Polk, LA, for on-the-job training on 20 June1964, as a student going through operating room specialist training
* He was still in the hospital on October 23, 1964 when he was awarded military occupational specialty 913.20 (Operating Room Specialist) and proficiency pay at P1, effective 7 August 1964
* His Chronological Record of Military Service is incorrect as it makes it look as though he was a patient beginning on 3 November 1964 through 2 December 1964, for only 1 month when he was hospitalized for 4 months
* 
Nowhere in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings does it state he was using a cane at the time he was assigned to Madigan General Hospital, Tacoma, WA, because he was still healing his injuries
* It is impossible and unrealistic to achieve number "1" in all six factors in the PULHES portion of his examination
* He does not remember having a physical evaluation or anyone talking to him or explaining anything to him
* He has never heard of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness)
* He does not know why he was given a "1" physical profile as if he was completely healed and his body was 100 percent (%)
* He had to have two major operations and physical therapy
* According to Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), he should have gone before a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and he did not
* A full physical by a medical doctor would have determined if he was physically fit and he was not given a physical
* He was not medically fit for any military assignment as stated in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings
* On his Report of Medical History, he stated he was in good health other than a slight stiffness in his left leg; he did not say he was in excellent condition
* His medical records prove that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded him benefits based on his service-connected injuries from his automobile accident
* He would hate to think that he was discriminated against as an African American

3.  The applicant provides:

* A self-authored letter dated 15 March 2010 disagreeing with the previous decision made by the ABCMR
* A letter from his Member of Congress, dated 22 April 2010
* Section 4 of his Chronological Record of Military Service
* U.S. Army Academy of Health and Sciences Diploma
* Two supporting letters with supporting documents, addressed to the Director, ABCMR, from individuals who served with him, attesting to his physical condition after his automobile accident

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 AR20090012941 on 2 February 2010.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found that while the applicant's injuries and scars were well documented in his service medical records, there was no evidence of record that indicated he was not able to perform the duties of his MOS and his rank.  The Board further found the following:

* His proficiency pay was continued, which indicated he was performing his duties in a satisfactory manner
* The numerical designator "1" under all factors in his PULHES on his separation examination indicates he was medically fit for further military service
* There is no evidence showing he would have been referred to an MEB or determined to be unfit for further military service

3.  As new evidence the applicant provides two supporting letters from individuals who served with him after his automobile accident.  Both individuals state he walked with a limp and used a cane, his face was disfigured, and his injuries continued to cause him difficulty.

4.  As new argument the applicant essentially states that there are inaccuracies in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings, dated 2 February 2010.

5.  The applicant's records show that with 3 years of prior enlisted Army service, he reenlisted in the Army for 3 years on 10 July 1962 as an operating room specialist.

6.  The U.S. Army Academy of Health Sciences Diploma that the applicant submits shows he attended and completed an Operating Room Procedures (Basic) Course at Fort Sam Houston, TX, during the period 25 May 1964 to 7 August 1964.

7.  On 4 August 1964, the applicant was admitted to the U.S. Army Hospital at Fort Polk with bi-mandibular fractures of the right mandible (lower jaw), fracture of the right mandibular angle, fractures of the right mandibular parasymphyseal area, comminuted maxillary fracture, fracture of the nasal bones, fracture of the 

right zygomatic bone (a bone on the side of the face below the eye), lacerations of oral mucosa and left eye lid, tracheotomy, and sutured lacerations.  The exact date of his release from the hospital is not shown in the available records.

8.  The available records show the applicant was awarded MOS 913.20 and proficiency pay at the P1 level, effective 7 August 1964.

9.  On 12 June 1965, the applicant received a separation examination.  This examination documents a deformity of the right mandibular due to loss of teeth, fracture of the mandible, maxilla, and left femur (the proximal bone of the hind or lower limb that is the longest and largest bone in the human body extends from the hip to the knee, also called the thigh bone).  The examination also documents numerous scars.  His physical profile is shown as a numerical designator of "1" in all six factors in the PULHES portion of the examination.

10.  On 9 July 1965, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) at the expiration of his term of service.  He had served 6 years of total active service.

11.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): 

* P - physical capacity or stamina
* U - upper extremities
* L - lower extremities
* H - hearing and ears
* E - eyes
* S - psychiatric

Numerical designator "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment.

12.  Army Regulation 635-40, then in effect, provided that when a medical examination indicated that hospitalization was necessary, the commanding 

officer would order the member to the nearest hospital for observation, treatment, and appropriate disposition.  The principal function of the MEB was to evaluate the condition and recommend appropriate disposition of those patients whose cases were referred for its action.  When the approved action of the MEB did not provide for either final medical disposition of the case or deferment of disposition pending transfer of further observation, the case was referred to the jurisdiction of a physical evaluation board (PEB) for disposition.  In addition, the regulation provided that whenever it appeared that a member was medically unfit for active duty his case would be referred to a PEB for disposition.

13.  Title 38, U.S. Code, provides for the VA to make a determination and award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's reconsideration request, his arguments, and the supporting statements were carefully considered.  However, as he has been previously advised, there is no evidence of record that would indicate he was not able to perform the duties of his MOS and rank at the time of his separation.

2.  His records show he underwent a separation physical examination on 12 June 1965 and while his injuries and scars are annotated therein, his physical profile is shown as a numerical designator of "1" in all six factors in the PULHES portion of the examination.  This indicates he was medically fit for retention at the time of his discharge.

3.  The applicant's contention that his previous ABCMR Record of Proceedings contains mistakes has been noted.  The "mistakes" to which he refers either do not exist or are not so egregious as to warrant granting the requested relief.  Overall disagreement with the previous decision made in his case based on a lack of understanding of law and/or regulation is not a basis for correcting of an official record to show that an individual was discharged due to medical reasons.

4.  The applicant was properly discharged at the expiration of his term of service and based on a lack of evidence showing error or injustice in the reason for the discharge he received over 43 years ago, his request should not be granted. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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 AR20090012941, dated 2 February 2010.



      ____________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)                                         AR20100013200



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100013200



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1