IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 19 January 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110013883
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 correction of her military records to show she was retired due to physical disability.
2. The applicant states her discharge should have been through a medical evaluation board (MEB) for a military retirement rather than a normal discharge. She contends that she incurred a service-connected shoulder disability on
22 May 2002; service-connected second degree burns on 10 April 2004; and disabling panic attacks on 13 May 2004.
3. The applicant provides copies of the following documents:
* Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status, dated 22 May 2002
* DD Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip), dated 18 April 2004
* DA Form 3918 (Facsimile Transmittal Header Sheet), dated 11 May 2004
* DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 13 May 2004
* Order 079850 and Annex A (Personnel Main Body), 81st Regional Readiness Command, dated 7 May 2004
* DA Form 7425 (Readiness and Deployment Checklist), dated 13 May 2004
* Orders 04-141-00603, U.S. Army Reserve Command, dated 20 May 2004
* Information sheet from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concerning Chapter 3 VA Pensions
* Letter from the Community Health Center, Johnson City, TN, dated
29 September 2010
* VA Form 21-0845 (Authorization to Disclose Personal Information to a Third Party), dated 24 June 2011
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. On 12 April 2001, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). She completed her initial active duty training and was awarded a military occupational specialty.
3. The evidence provided by the applicant shows:
a. On 22 May 2002, she incurred an injury that was determined to be in the line of duty, resulting in a temporary disability due to the onset of pain in her right neck and shoulder.
b. DD Form 689, dated 18 April 2004, indicates she received second degree burns which were determined to be in the line of duty.
c. DA Form 3349, dated 13 May 2004, indicates a permanent physical profile and need for an MEB/PEB due to illness/disease (panic attacks). A note refers to a non-duty physical disability board (PEB). The form is signed by the examining physician, but does not show approval/disapproval by the approving authority.
d. DA Form 7425, dated 13 May 2004, indicated that she was a "NO GO" for readiness and deployment due to readiness certification, medical, and dental.
4. Orders 06-040-00055, 81st Regional Readiness Command, dated 9 February 2006:
a. Paragraph 1 reduced the applicant from specialist, pay grade E-4 to private, pay grade E-1; and
b. Paragraph 2 discharged the applicant from the USAR effective the same date, under the authority of Army Regulation 135-178. She was given an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.
5. The applicant's service medical records are not available for review.
6. The applicant's discharge packet is not available for review.
7. Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), establishes the policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted Soldiers from the Reserve Components.
8. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) paragraph 2-9 provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.
9. Army Regulation 635-40 (Personnel Separations Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) precludes physical disability processing or continuing disability processing of an enlisted member who is being processed for administrative separation under any regulatory provision which authorizes separation under other than honorable conditions. The only exceptions are when the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction (who may not delegate this authority) finds that the disability was the cause or a substantial contributing cause of the pertinent misconduct or that other circumstances warrant disability processing.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends her military records should be corrected to show she was retired due to physical disability because she incurred a service-connected shoulder disability on 22 May 2002, service-connected second degree burns on 10 April 2004, and disabling panic attacks on 13 May 2004.
2. The available evidence:
a. shows the applicant was examined in 2004 and recommended for an MEB/PEB. While, the recommendation was signed by the examining physician, it does not show approval/disapproval by the approving authority;
b. does not contain any documents showing continuing medical problems during 2005; and
c. shows that in February 2006, the applicant was reduced in rank and administratively discharged;
3. The available records do not contain any evidence of the misconduct that led to the applicant's administrative discharge. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any substantiating evidence or convincing argument to support her contention that her discharge was unjust.
4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with her overall record.
5. Furthermore, the applicant's administrative separation for misconduct would have most likely precluded any physical disability processing.
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) AR20110013883
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110013883
5
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003360
The applicant submits a new request for correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his deployment to Kuwait/Iraq from 18 March to 1 August 2003. The applicant provides: * DD Form 2796 (Post-Deployment Health Assessment), dated 29 July 2003 * a memorandum for record (MFR), dated 5 November 2003, from the 61st Area Support Medical Battalion * DD Form 1610 (Request and Authorization for TDY (temporary duty) Travel of DOD (Department of Defense)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007435
The applicant provides copies of his military medical records, separation documents, and VA rating decisions. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures 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. c. Chapter 8 (Reserve Component), paragraph 8-6 (Medical Processing), provides: (1) When a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015881
A memorandum, dated 24 February 2004, from Headquarters, 81st RRC to Commander TTHS stated the Command Surgeon had reviewed the applicant's medical records and determined her medical condition was medically unacceptable. A Soldier with a non-duty related medical condition may request a PEB; however, the PEB would only determine fitness for duty. In view of the above, she was properly processed for separation in accordance with USAR regulations and she is not entitled to a discharge with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017846
The applicant requests: a. reconsideration of her previous request for correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her rank and pay grade as sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7; b. correction of her record to show she was discharged with severance pay; and c. in effect, correction of her record to show her diagnosis of adjustment disorder was found not unfitting. The PEB found the following conditions to be unfitting: * adjustment disorder with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019324
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay. Although the applicant contends he should have gone through medical processing since his injury occurred on active duty, the available evidence shows his medical condition did not render him medically unfit or unable to meet retention...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021387
Currently, the pain in her neck, arm, and shoulder was constant and was especially aggravated while turning her head to the right which sent pain all the way down her right arm. The PEB rated her under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 5003, granted a 20 percent (%) disability rating, and recommended she be separated with entitlement to severance pay, if otherwise qualified. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017026
The applicant provides: * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) * letter to the physical evaluation board (PEB) * service medical records * VA medical records CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 13 July 2004, a medical evaluation board (MEB) diagnosed him with neck pain with cervical DDD and bilateral radiculopathy. The board's scope of review was limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004098
f. The reverse side of a DA Form 7349 (Initial Medical Review - Annual Medical Certificate), dated 7 January 2005, which shows a physician opined that he was unfit for continued service in the USAR and required a non-duty PEB to evaluate his conditions of Hepatitis C and hearing loss. He requested an informal PEB to review his medical records for a final determination of his medical fitness for retention. Since he had failed to make an election within the prescribed time limits the case...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017142
The report noted she did not seek treatment for panic attacks and PTSD symptoms while serving in Iraq. (4) Refer the case to the Army Physical Disability Appeal Board. The record shows the applicant non-concurred with the informal PEB findings and recommendations and requested an appearance before a formal PEB.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01130
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the chronic mid-thoracic back pain condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Flexion (90 Normal)9090Extension (30)2530Combined (240 )220240CommentAll ROM with pain; reflexes symmetric§4.71a Rating10%10%At the MEB/narrative summary (NARSUM) evaluation performed June 2005, 10 months before separation, the CI reported baseline back pain of 4/10 increasing to 7/10 with...