Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025888
Original file (20100025888.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  14 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100025888 


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 her discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states that on 11 April 1996, she was asked to escort another Soldier to pick up a vehicle in Charleston, SC.  An accident occurred and she killed another person. She contends that the Army gave her less than six months of therapy with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and was then sent to Korea.  She was picked at and called a killer by her fellow co-workers.  She was hurting and needed to get out so that she would not be a problem to the military.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), an accident report and obituary, memorandum dated 
6 September 1996, a medical statement, dated 9 October 1996, and four third-party statements.

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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 March 1991.  Upon completion of initial entry training, she was awarded military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist).  She reenlisted on 6 July 1994 for 4 years.

3.  She was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) on 8 May 1998.  Her separation orders show she was separated not by reason of physical disability.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 shows she was separated to attend school.

4.  There is no evidence in the available records showing she was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board or a Physical Evaluation Board for consideration of a medical condition.

5.  She provided an accident report, dated 11 April 1996, that confirms she was involved in a motor vehicle accident.  She also provided a memorandum, dated 
6 September 1996, in which the Chief, Community Mental Health Services recommended she be granted command sponsorship for her tour in Korea in order to assist in her recovery from PTSD and a medical statement, dated 
9 October 1996, indicating she could not participate in a permanent change of station (PCS) for two weeks due to an infection.

6.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he/she must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.  Performance of duty despite impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her discharge should be changed to a medical retirement.

2.  While the circumstances surrounding the motor vehicle accident she was involved in are indeed unfortunate, there is no medical evidence available, and she provided none, showing she had any disabling medical condition prior to her discharge on 8 May 1998 that warranted processing through medical channels.  There is also no evidence of record showing she was ever found to be medically unfit to perform her duties.

3.  In view of the above, there is no basis to grant the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20100025888



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100025888



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008626

    Original file (20130008626.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a letter, dated 25 February 2013, from a registered nurse who states that from 7 November 2009 through 30 August 2010, the applicant was unable to independently perform 3 of the 6 activities of daily living (ADL). Part II loss includes traumatic injuries resulting in the inability to perform at least 2 ADLs for 30 or more consecutive days and hospitalization due to a traumatic injury and other traumatic injury (OTI) resulting in the inability to carry out 2 of the 6...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001806

    Original file (20120001806.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB proceedings also stated "The Soldier's retirement is 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 "The disability did result from a combat related injury as defined in 26 U.S. Code 104." Department of Defense (DOD) guidance on CRSC states a combat-related disability is a disability with an assigned medical diagnosis code from the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities that was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058583C070421

    Original file (2001058583C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : That she had a compression fracture from an injury that she received in Kuwait. An 8 June 2001 VA medical record shows that she was receiving a 60 percent disability rating for neck and back pain, that the applicant stated that her problem had been progressively getting worse. Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002715

    Original file (20110002715.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts, as provided by counsel: * the FSM first enlisted in the U.S. Army on 15 September 2000 and was trained as an infantryman * the FSM served in Iraq where he was exposed to IED's, one of which caused him to lose consciousness due to a grade III concussion * the FSM was subsequently assigned for duty at Fort Gordon, Georgia, as a drill sergeant * the FSM continued to experience severe headaches of which his wife and co-workers were aware and he had received medical treatment * the FSM's...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05183-99

    Original file (05183-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    __-.. ._ ’ , MSC, USN, dtd 21 Ott 98 found.the member fit for duty on - PEB Case File - Additional Medical Evidence - Service - Memo from - PRT Folder A medical board was held at on 14 January 1998 with diagnoses of: Chronic Low Back Pain (7242) 1. question is not whether the member's performance is "sub-optimal", but rather whether her performance meets required Navy standards. evaluations up through July 1997, which reflect that the member has always performed at or above standard.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003061

    Original file (20120003061.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. His records show he was evaluated by an MEB and PEB to determine whether he was fit for duty based on his rank and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 200165862

    Original file (200165862.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022076

    Original file (20130022076.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of her medical evaluation board (MEB) and physical evaluation board (PEB) proceedings to show additional unfitting medical conditions and her discharge with severance pay changed to physical disability retirement. The applicant contends her MEB and PEB proceedings should be corrected to show additional unfitting medical conditions and her discharge with severance pay changed to physical disability retirement. The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098017C070212

    Original file (03098017C070212.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There were no service medical records available to the Board, or provided by the applicant, beyond the 1994 line of duty report. When a solider is being processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the soldier is scheduled for separation, is an indication that the applicant is fit. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which confirms that she was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065862C070421

    Original file (2001065862C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 November 1997 the applicant reported to medical personnel that she experienced migraines one to three times per month and on that particular day (19 November) she had taken medication for her migraine and was requesting that she be assigned to her quarters for the day. The VA's decision to grant the applicant a 50 percent disability rating for her headaches was based on information contained in the applicant's MEB and a 6 August 1998 examination in which the applicant stated that "the...