Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001171
Original file (20110001171.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110001171 


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:

* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be amended
* entries on his DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings) be amended

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

* he wants the entry "EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE, PEB" in item 28 of his DD Form 214 removed
* he wants the entry "NOT PERMANTLY [sic] SERVICE AGGRAVTED [sic]" in item 13 (Diagnosis) of his DA Form 3947 removed
* he did not place an "X" in items 15 (The patient does/does not desire to continue on active duty under AR [Army Regulation] 635-40) and 24 (I have been informed of the approved findings and recommendation of the board) of his DA Form 3947
* his disability was aggravated while he was in the service
* he had surgery while in the service and went through numerous casts due to his job duties
* it is not his fault the surgery did not take
* he was told just to sign his name "here and here" through the stack of papers so they could hurry him out of the service
* he wanted to stay in the service and he loved what he was doing in the service   
3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214
* DA Form 3947

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.  He enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps on 9 July 1985.  On 29 July 1985, he was discharged for physical disability existing prior to entry determined by a Medical Board (entry level separation).    

3.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 September 1986 for a period of 3 years.  On 18 November 1986, he was discharged for fraudulent entry.

4.  He enlisted in the Army National Guard on 21 September 1993.  On 20 June 1996, he was honorably discharged for enlistment in the Regular Army.  

5.  His enlistment contract shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 June 1996 for a period of 3 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantryman).  

6.  A DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile Record), dated 6 January 1998, shows he was issued a permanent profile "3" for great toe "JT" [joint] pain; hallux limitus. 

7.  Item 13 of a DA Form 3947, dated 26 March 1998, shows an MEB diagnosed him with an EPTS [existed prior to service] condition of symptomatic hallux limitus with DJD [Degenerative Joint Disease], first metatarsal phalangeal joint left foot with arthritic changes which have been resistant to both conservative and surgical intervention, medically unacceptable in accordance with AR 40-501, chapter 3-13b(1) and not permanently service aggravated.  Item 15 of this form shows an "X" in the entry "The patient does not desire to continue on active duty under AR 635-40."  The applicant agreed with the board's findings and recommendation on 7 April 1998.  Item 24 of this form shows an "X" for the entry "I agree with the board's findings and recommendation."  The MEB recommended referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  

8.  On 14 April 1998, a PEB found the applicant physically unfit due to left foot pain, due to symptomatic hallux limitus, first MP [metatarsal phalangeal] joint with arthritic changes.  In the disability description section it states the applicant had bunion surgery prior to entry.  The activities required of an infantryman resulted in chronic foot pain which, with his profile restrictions, precluded duty performance as an infantryman.  Based on a review of the objective medical evidence of record, the PEB found his medical and physical impairment prevented reasonable performance of duties required by grade and military specialty.  There was compelling evidence to support a finding that the current condition was EPTS and was not permanently aggravated by such service.  The PEB recommended a combined 0 percent (%) disability rating percentage and separation from the service without disability benefits.  On 24 April 1998, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations and waived a formal hearing.  

9.  The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency approved the findings and recommendations on 29 April 1998.  

10.  On 24 June 1998, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(4) for disability, existed prior to service, PEB.

11.  Item 25 (Separation Authority) of his DD Form 214 shows the entry 
"AR 635-40, PARA [paragraph] 4-24B(4)."  Item 26 (Separation Code) shows the entry "JFM."  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214 shows the entry, "DISABILITY, EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE, PEB." 

12.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JFM” is “Disability, Existed Prior to Service, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(4).  




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends his disability (left foot pain) was aggravated while he was in the service and the entry "not permanently service aggravated" should be removed from item 13 of his DA Form 3947.  An MEB found his disability EPTS and was not permanently service aggravated.  A PEB found he had bunion surgery prior to entry and there was compelling evidence to support a finding that his current condition EPTS was not permanently aggravated by such service.  There is insufficient evidence, and he provides no substantiating evidence, on which to amend item 13 of his DA Form 3947.     

2.  He contends he did not place an "X" in items 15 and 24 of his DA Form 3947.  However, there is no evidence to support this contention.  He provides no evidence to substantiate that he did not "X" or agree with the entries in those items and therefore there is insufficient evidence on which to amend items 15 or 24 of his DA Form 3947.  

3.  The narrative reason for separation used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to amend item 28 of his DD Form 214.

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)                                         AR20110001171





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110001171



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016581

    Original file (20110016581.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of the narrative reason of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he was medically discharged. This condition existed prior to service (EPTS). The SPD code "JFM" is the correct code for Soldiers separating under Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b (physical disability existing prior to entry on active duty established by PEB proceedings; not entitled to severance pay).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000808

    Original file (20120000808.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The deformity was noted on her enlistment physical, dated 20 May 1997, first symptomatic August 1998, surgery recommended to correct valgus and cock-up toe deformity (proximal osteotomy and resection arthroplasty performed September 1999). Due to the aggravation to her toes while in the service she had two surgeries that left her unfit for service. The evidence of record shows that due to foot pain she had two corrective surgeries.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01515

    Original file (PD-2013-01515.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    An L3 profile was issued for bilateral hallux limitus (big toes limited motion and pain) on 13 November 2003 with restrictions of no running, jumping, prolonged standing, climbing or crawling on or under military equipment.The MEB NARSUM dated 12 December 2003 indicated the CI underwent additional surgery to remove the hardware and correction of her right foot from the surgery performed in September 2000. Her persistent hip pain was aggravated by the same activities as her back and limited...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001034

    Original file (20140001034.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) the entry "Service-connected, received service-connected at 50-percent rating" vice "Disability, Existed Prior to Service, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)." Physical examination revealed no gross abnormalities: tenderness to palpation of the plantar fasciitis on the right foot...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016003

    Original file (20100016003.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings) shows the MEB determined she had symptomatic accessory navicular of the foot that did not exist prior to service and was permanently aggravated by her military service. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) she was issued shows she was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 4-24b(4) of Army Regulation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005832

    Original file (20130005832.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    b. correction of her DA Form 199 Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) to show she was being treated for chronic back pain without muscle spasms. The SPD code "JFM" is the correct code for Soldiers separating under Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b (physical disability existing prior to entry on active duty established by PEB proceedings; not entitled to severance pay). There is no evidence to show she was ever given a permanent profile for her knee.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089816C070403

    Original file (2003089816C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: Had the applicant's condition not been found to be EPTS, the prohibition against pyramiding would have constrained the Army to rating only one each of the applicant's foot conditions, for a possible maximum disability rating of 20 percent.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00984

    Original file (PD2011-00984.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The right hallux valgus/limitus condition (bunion surgery and post-surgical result) was the principle cause of the right foot pain surgery and chronic right foot pain and was considered in rating the CI’s primary unfitting foot pain condition. The VA exam summary for pes planus is discussed above and all symptoms from the pes planus condition were considered in the rating of the foot pain condition. In the matter of the contended pes planus and hallux valgus conditions, the Board...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02293

    Original file (PD-2013-02293.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Foot Condition . It documented hallux valgus and pes cavus (claw foot, congenital) deformitiesof both feet and full ROM of the right ankle and hindfoot.That note itself did not reference trauma, but a follow-up orthopedic entry provided a history of injury to the right foot only. The podiatry addendum 8 months prior to separation documented pain rated “6/10 progressing to 9/10 on his right foot;” with no rest pain of the left foot, but 5/10 pain with activity.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01026

    Original file (PD 2014 01026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEB adjudicated “hallux limitus”as unfitting rating each great toe separately at 10% with a 20% combined rating, which included the bilateral factor. The remainder of the foot and ankle examination was normal.The MEB NARSUM concluded with diagnoses of hallux limitus (decreased motion of the toe) and metatarsal head metatarsalgia (pain at the base of the great toe). There was painful motion of the great toes, but the remainder of the foot...