IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110000723 


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, that his honorable discharge be changed to show he was medically retired due to a physical disability.

2.  He states, in effect, that at the time of discharge he was a patient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), Washington, DC undergoing surgery to correct chronic damage to his bladder and lower extremities as a result of wounds sustained in Vietnam.  He maintains that he had requested a medical board, and he was going to be medically boarded, but his term of service expired.  He adds that instead of being medically retired he was discharged.  Additionally, he states that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was not recognized by the Department of the Army or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at the time of discharge.  Therefore, his PTSD was never considered by a proper medical board. 

3.  He provides a self-authored statement and numerous medical documents from his service record and from the VA.

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 record shows he originally enlisted in the Regular Army on
9 September 1968.  He served in Republic of Vietnam from May 1969 to February 1971 and completed several tours in Germany. 

3.  The applicant provided copies of documents from his medical records that show he underwent several surgeries and continued to have medical problems with urethral strictures.  A Standard Form (SF) 502 (Narrative Summary), dated 12 March 1979, which was prepared by a medical doctor in Germany, listed the following history of his illness:

This 29 year old male was injured in 1970 and has had problems with recurrent urethral strictures since that time.  Initially he was treated with frequent urethral dilations.  The last 9 years have been complicated with urinary tract infections about two times per year.  His main complaints have included low back pain, perineal pain, bilateral scrotal pain, severe dysuria, and terminal hematuria, along with decrease in size and force of his urinary stream.  He has been followed in the Urology Clinic in Frankfurt since late 1976, being treated by [Colonel L. and Lieutenant Colonel P.], until I took over his case in 1978.  In December 1978, he underwent urethral dilation under anesthesia.  His symptoms were not relieved and the stricture in the bulbous urethral persisted.  The patient underwent cystoscopy, transurethral resection of the urethralastricture and internal urethrotomy on 23 January 1979.

4.  Headquarters, 97th General Hospital Orders 53-1, dated 19 March 1979, permanently changed his station from the Medical Holding Company, 97th General Hospital in Germany to the Medical Holding Company WRAMC.  His reporting date was listed as 23 March 1979.

5.  On 4 August 1979, he underwent an expiration term of service (ETS) physical in which he stated he was in "reasonable health."  He was cleared by the medical doctor for retention/discharge.


6.  His record is void of any evidence or documentation that shows he either requested or was recommended for processing through the physical disability system.

7.  On 9 August 1979, the applicant requested a discharge under the provision of chapter 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations –Enlisted Personnel), due to separation of enlisted members of medical holding detachments/companies.  In his request he acknowledged he understood the consequences involved with his request.  

8.  Accordingly, on 9 August 1979, he was discharged.  He completed 10 years and 6 months of creditable active service.

9.  His VA Rating Decision, dated 15 September 1981, shows he received a
20 percent disability rating for gunshot wounds, bladder with recurrent urethral stricture, and urinary tract infections.  There is no indication that he was rated for PTSD.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 states that hospital commanders in the grade of O6 or higher (general court-martial convening authority is not required) are authorized to order separation for the convenience of the Government of those enlisted personnel assigned to medical holding detachments or companies who have less than 3 months to serve to ETS following completion of hospitalization, and who sign a statement indicating that they are willing to accept separation under this paragraph. 

11.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) states that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  When a Soldier 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 Soldier is scheduled for separation, is an indication that the individual is fit.  

12.  This above regulation also states the commander will refer a Soldier to the servicing medical treatment facility for medical evaluation when the Soldier is believed to be unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  The medical treatment facility commander having primary medical care 


responsibility will conduct an examination of a Soldier referred for evaluation.  The commander will advise the Soldier's commanding officer of the results of the evaluation and the proposed disposition.  If it appears the Soldier is not medically qualified to perform duty, the medical treatment facility commander will refer the Soldier to a Medical Evaluation Board.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he requested a medical board while a patient at WRAMC Medical Hold Company, but due to his ETS he was discharged instead of being medically retired.  

2.  The available evidence shows he had a history of problems with recurrent urethral strictures and he had undergone several surgeries while in a medical hold status to correct the problem.  However, on 9 August 1979 he requested a separation, as required by the regulation, and his request was approved.  The fact that he was medically cleared for separation is an indication that his problem was either resolved or stabilized at the time of separation.  There is no evidence in his available record and he has provided no evidence to show he was physically unfit to perform his duties at the time of separation and/or that he sought processing through the physical disability system.

3.  No medical evidence has been presented by the applicant to demonstrate an injustice in the medical treatment he received while he was in an active duty status or any evidence to show he was denied due process.  Consequently, there is no basis for granting his 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)                                         AR20110000723



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000723



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1