Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000379
Original file (20110000379.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110000379 


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 the DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation - Line of Duty (LOD) and Misconduct Status) be corrected to show his injury was "in LOD" instead of "not in LOD - due to own misconduct."

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 35th Field Artillery Group, Germany in March 1975 when he was assaulted.  On 13 March 1975, he was on guard duty and at 2300 hours Private (PV2) WJR was scheduled to relieve him.  He went to PV2 WJR's room and knocked on his door to wake him up.  PV2 WJR's roommate told him that PV2 WJR was sleeping and not to bother him.  He told the duty sergeant and the duty sergeant told him to go back and get PV2 WJR.  He went back upstairs and PV2 WJR's roommate let him in the room.  He tried to explain to PV2 WJR that he would pull the duty for him but he had to go downstairs first and sign in.  Once they got into the hall PV2 WJR became loud and angry because he had been woken-up and he made statements about the applicant's mother.  He grabbed PV2 WJR by the collar and told him to shut up or he would kick his a**.  PV2 WJR then attacked him with a switchblade and he defended himself by knocking PV2 WJR down and throwing a wax can at him; but he missed PV2 WJR and hit the door instead.  PV2 WJR then attacked and stabbed him in the temple, heart, and lungs.

	b.  He has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder due to the incident that occurred in March 1975 and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will not approve his claim because of the LOD findings.
3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 261
* Article 32 Report of Proceedings
* A VA Rating Decision
* Seven pages of VA medical record progress notes
* VA Form 21-22 (Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as Claimant's Representative)

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's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 July 1974 and he held military occupational specialty 36K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist).  He served in Germany from 23 January to 11 June 1975 while assigned to 3rd Battalion, 35th Field Artillery and from 24 July 1975 to 30 March 1976 while assigned to 1st Battalion, 75th Field Artillery.

3.  He was honorably released from active duty on 31 March 1976 by reason of failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service.  He completed 1 year, 7 months, and 4 days of creditable active service with 32 days of time lost.  He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal.

4.  The applicant provides a DD Form 261, dated 12 May 1975, wherein it shows the following:

	a.  The applicant was "stabbed while fighting with another Soldier."  Item 9g (Basis for Findings) (Remarks) of this form stated that on 13 March 1975, the applicant was admitted to the U.S. Army Hospital in Wurzburg (Germany) for treatment of stab wounds.  He had been involved in a dispute in the billets, he attempted to wake PV2 WJR for guard duty, a fight ensued, and he was stabbed by PV2 WJR.  The investigating officer (IO) stated his investigation revealed there was no intentional misconduct on the part of the applicant.  His finding was "in the LOD."  The applicant was unable to be questioned, and the Article 32 investigation against PV2 WJR was attached.

	b.  On 21 May 1975, the appointing authority approved the IO's findings and on 23 May 1975, the reviewing authority approved the findings. 

	c.  On 6 June 1975, the approving authority disapproved the LOD findings and changed the findings to "not in the LOD - due to own misconduct."  Evidence indicated [the applicant] was at least equally at fault in starting or continuing the altercation with PV2 WJR.  Therefore, in accordance with Rule 7, Appendix C, Army Regulation 600-33 the above finding was made.

5.  The applicant provides the Article 32 record of proceedings, dated 7 April 1975, wherein the applicant testified that PV2 WJR and he got into an argument when he went to wake PV2 WJR for guard duty.  PV2 WJR pulled a knife on the applicant and when the applicant tried to grab the knife he was stabbed by PV2 WJR.  Under cross examination, the applicant testified that he had drunk a few beers in a friend's room earlier that evening and that he may have grabbed PV2 WJR and pushed him against the wall because PV2 WJR made statements about the applicant's mother.  After PV2 WJR stabbed the applicant, he went back to his room, got an iron to protect himself, and went looking for PV2 WJR. 

6.  PV2 WJR's roommate testified that he and PV2 WJR were drinking the night of the stabbing when the applicant came to their room to inform PV2 WJR he had guard duty.  PV2 WJR and the applicant went into the hall and the roommate could hear what sounded like someone wrestling outside the door.  He heard them exchange harsh words.  PV2 WJR came back to the room and later the applicant came to the room and harsh words were again exchanged between them.  The roommate could not see the applicant as he was in the hall and PV2 WJR was in the doorway with a knife in his hand, but during the course of the argument a 5-gallon wax can was thrown in the room.  Immediately after the can was thrown, the applicant rushed into the room and clutched PV2 WJR.  The roommate tried to separate them, PV2 WJR left the room, and the applicant followed him.  It was at this point that the roommate saw blood stains on the floor and left the room to get someone to clean it up.  He did not realize anyone was stabbed until the applicant came up the stairs, walked past him, and collapsed.

7.  PV2 WJR testified that on the night of the stabbing the applicant looked as though he had been drinking, came into his room, yelled at him, and slammed him up against the wall.  He (PV2 WJR) then got his knife because he was scared, but he had not planned on using it. 
8.  Army Regulation 600-33 (LOD Investigations) in effect at the time, dated 1 February 1975, prescribed the policies and procedures for investigating the circumstances of the disease, injury, or death of a Soldier and provided standards and considerations used in determining LOD status.  It provided that after the report of investigation had been prepared it would be reviewed by the appointing, reviewing, and final approving authorities.  The appointing authority will approve or disapprove the findings of the IO and the reviewing authority will approve or disapprove the finding of the appointing authority.  The final approving authority will approve or disapprove the finding of the reviewing authority.

9.  Appendix C, rule 7 of Army Regulation 600-33 provided, in pertinent part, that injury incurred as the result of an act of wrongful aggression, or of voluntary participation in a fight or similar encounter, where one is at least equally at fault with his adversary in starting or continuing the altercation, is incurred not in LOD due to misconduct.  Provocative actions or language by the member used under the circumstances wherein a reasonable man would anticipate retaliation and injuries resulting therefrom are attributable to misconduct.  However, except as it may be warranted in the exercise of self-defense, for a member to persist in a fight or encounter after his adversary produces a dangerous weapon is to act in wanton disregard for safety and constitutes willful neglect.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was involved in an altercation with PV2 WJR and was stabbed by PV2 WJR.  Testimony by the applicant and PV2 WJR's roommate revealed the applicant started or continued the altercation in that he exchanged harsh words with PV2 WJR, pushed him against a wall, returned to PV2 WJR's room, and continued to exchange harsh words with him.  

2.  It appears that as evidence indicated the applicant was at least equally at fault in starting or continuing the altercation with PV2 WJR and based on all the facts of the case, the approving authority disapproved the LOD findings and determined that due to the applicant's misconduct and in accordance with appendix C, rule 7, of Army Regulation 600-33, the findings were not in the LOD.

3.  The evidence of record also shows the applicant's LOD investigation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  

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

5.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for the correction of records solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or other benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a correction to his military records.

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)                                         AR20110000379





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000379



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012250

    Original file (20120012250.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation – Line of Duty (LOD) and Misconduct Status), dated 12 December 1974, to show his injuries occurred in the LOD instead of not in the LOD due to own misconduct. According to the DA Form 2800 (U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Report of Investigation), as investigated by the El Paso Police Department (EPPD), the following facts are noted: * at approximately 0030 hours on 1 November 19974 at the High Tide...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 1998-087appendices

    Original file (1998-087appendices.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant! About 11:00 p.m., [the applicant and J.M.] [The applicant and J.M.]

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068749C070402

    Original file (2002068749C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The LODI investigating officer found the applicant's injuries did not occur in the line of duty and were due to his own misconduct. PERSCOM further advised that the applicant's LODI had numerous legal reviews; however, due to changes in statements and questions regarding the application of Rule 7, Army Regulation 600-8-1, another legal review of the investigation was conducted. It was only after the gang members began winning and the soldiers retreated that deadly force was used by the...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 1998-087majorityFinalDec

    The applicant and L.S. was looking for the applicant. and the applicant.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003702

    Original file (20110003702.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The official stated the applicant: * injured his back on 2 June 2000 as a civilian and received a civilian disability rating * was counseled by his doctor and advised to find a job that did not involve bending, lifting, or pulling * continued to have back pain due to increased activity, surgery was recommended, but the applicant declined * injured his back again on 6 July 2007 while lifting weights * was again advised to have surgery which ultimately took place on 22 August 2007 * was deemed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089358C070212

    Original file (2003089358C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his Line of Duty (LOD) determination be changed from LOD – No, Not Due to Own Misconduct to LOD – Yes, Not Due to Own Misconduct. Doctor I___ stated that, with all due respect to Doctor H___ (identity unknown, but most likely the doctor whose opinion caused the reviewing authority to change the LOD investigation findings to Not in Line of Duty), he retained an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the applicant's activity during his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018318

    Original file (20100018318.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Paragraph 39-5 (Standards Applicable to LOD Determinations) of Army Regulation 600-8-1 provided that "injury or disease proximately caused by the member's intentional misconduct or willful negligence is "not in LOD - due to own misconduct." Appendix B (Rules Governing LOD and Misconduct Determinations) of Army Regulation 600-8-1 stated that "in every formal investigation, the purpose is to find out whether there is evidence of intentional misconduct or willful negligence that is substantial...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030135

    Original file (20100030135.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that the injuries he sustained in a motorcycle accident on 29 May 1962 be determined to have been incurred in the line of duty (LOD). 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. On 23 June 1962, the appointing authority disapproved the IO's findings stating...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004308C071029

    Original file (20070004308C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 October 1993, the applicant was charged with assaulting his wife. He told her he needed to call an ambulance to get her to the hospital [where she was eventually treated for nine days]. The Manual for Courts-Martial United States, Part II, Rule 401 (Forwarding and disposition of charges in general) states only persons authorized to convene courts-martial or to administer nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 may dispose of charges.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021216

    Original file (20090021216.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.