Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014504
Original file (20100014504.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100014504 


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, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the reason for his discharge was due to physical disability.

2.  The applicant states he has been mentally and physically handicapped since 1986 when a transmission fell on his head while serving on active duty.  He should have been discharged due to his medical condition.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214; doctor and hospital reports, dated in 2009 and 2010; and a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter, dated 28 April 2009.

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 applicant's 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 applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  On 24 May 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 62B (Construction Equipment Repairer).  He was subsequently assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

3.  On 1 February 1985, the applicant was advanced to private first class/pay grade E-3.

4.  A DA Form 4126 (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), dated 5 November 1986, recommended that the applicant be denied reenlistment in the U.S. Army.  This recommendation was based on the following:

	a.  disposition form from Social Work Service related to a case of family violence, dated 4 April 1986.

	b.  letter of reprimand for domestic assault, dated 28 April 1986;

	c.  letter from the hospital for failure to attend therapy, dated 25 June 1986;

	d.  six counseling statements for missing formation during June-October 1986;

	e.  nonjudicial punishment, dated 15 August 1986, for missing formation; and

	f.  letter of indebtedness from telephone company, dated 16 October 1986.

5.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 1 December 1986, the appropriate authority approved the bar.  There is no available evidence of record showing the bar to reenlistment was ever reviewed or voided.

7.  The applicant's service medical records are not available for review.  A Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 19 February 1988, noted the applicant had knee pain.  He was found to be qualified for separation with a non-limiting physical profile.

8.  On 24 March 1988, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).  He had attained the rank of specialist four/pay grade E-4 and had completed 3 years, 10 months, and 1 day of creditable active duty service.

9.  Item 25 (Separation Authority) and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of the applicant's DD Form 214 states he was separated due to a reduction in authorized strength under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).

10.  A VA letter, dated 28 April 2009, provided by the applicant indicates he has been awarded a 70-percent service-connected disability.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 16-8 sets forth the requirements for early separation of enlisted personnel due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  The service of personnel separated under this paragraph will be characterized as honorable.

12.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

13.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permit the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered physically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he was separated due to physical disability.

2.  There is no documentary evidence showing the applicant was injured while on active duty, or that any such injury was found to be in the line of duty, or that it resulted in the applicant becoming physically disabled.

3.  The applicant's service medical records are not available for review.  However, his report of medical examination for separation reported that he was fully qualified for separation and did not identify any adverse medical conditions other than knee pain.
4.  The applicant served on active duty for more than 3 years.  His DD Form 214 indicates he was released from active duty due to a reduction in authorized strength.  There is no available evidence showing he incurred any medical conditions while entitled to basic pay which were so severe as to render him medically unfit for retention on active duty.  Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for reasons other than physical disability.

5.  An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation from the Army.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military duty, awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service (service connected) and affects the individual's civilian employability and/or social functioning.  The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated.

6.  In view of the above, 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 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)                                         AR20100014504



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100014504



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005012

    Original file (20080005012.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Another platoon sergeant stated what when it came to performing his job as a Chaparral Squad Leader and caring for the needs of his Soldiers, the applicant(‘s performance) was of the highest standards. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. He provided numerous statements of support with his appeal indicating he daily demonstrated his Soldier skills; that his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019551

    Original file (20090019551.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged from active duty in pay grade E-4 on 24 June 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. The applicant's contentions were considered and the available evidence shows the applicant was discharged on 24 June 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance due to a positive urinalysis. There is no evidence of record and the applicant has...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021545

    Original file (20120021545.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides copies of his: * Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings * Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings * VA rating decision CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence of record shows the PEB considered the applicant's entire case file, including the LOD finding and his MEB proceedings. Records show that after the applicant's PEB findings and recommendations were approved, and the PEBLO provided the applicant information about applying for VA compensation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000418C070208

    Original file (20040000418C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides two DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); discharge orders dated 5 May 1986; a DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards); pages 2 – 7 of a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary; a DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation Line of Duty and Misconduct Status) with endorsements and enclosures (a DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), two DA Forms...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020058

    Original file (20120020058.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant provides in support of her application: * statement from a retired U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) major * Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) documents * DA Form 3349, dated 8 August 2003 * Two DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * National Guard Bureau (NGB) 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * NGB Form 55 (Discharge Certificate) * Clinical Assessment...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010504C080213

    Original file (20070010504C080213.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that his medical condition was diagnosed after he had been in the Army for over 13 years. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was fit for duty at the time of his separation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098272C070212

    Original file (03098272C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If his condition was severe enough for the VA to grant him a 30 percent disability rating, then he should have received a medical discharge from the Army. On 30 August 2000 the VA notified the applicant that his optic neuritis to his left eye was service connected with a 30 percent disability rating. The VA, which has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007672

    Original file (20120007672.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Her commander’s 20 December 2011 memorandum for record indicated that in 2005 the applicant had a debilitating migraine and he subsequently saw that this condition “consistently compromise” the applicant’s quality of life, where she was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010979

    Original file (20110010979.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    MEB Proceedings he provided in support of his previous application show, on 29 December 1992, an MEB diagnosed him to have chronic tendonitis of the left supraspinatus tendon, left patellar tendon, and left Achilles tendon, and recommended that he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). f. A VA Rating Decision, dated 28 September 2004, showing he was granted service-connection for: (1) left shoulder tendonitis rated at 20% from 1 May 2000. The available records show no evidence...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012843

    Original file (20090012843.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that the evaluations of his physical and mental condition during the medical evaluation board (MEBD) and the physical evaluation board (PEB) were not consistent with DOD directives and failed to properly determine the extent of his service-connected conditions. The evidence of record shows an MEBD was conducted as well as a PEB. The evidence of record further shows that the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination for compensation and pension from the VA shortly...