Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015881
Original file (20130015881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

	

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130015881 


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 her honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge or medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states she was diagnosed with type one diabetes in March 2000 and her unit was aware of her medical condition.  In 2002 she had a 
2-week assignment at Fort Jackson where she became ill from complications of diabetes and she had to report to sick call every day until she could receive orders to return home.  In 2003 her unit was deployed to Iraq and everyone went to Fort Stewart, GA for processing.  She was not allowed to go because she was on insulin and she would have been turned around and not allowed to deploy with the unit.  She was allowed to complete her enlistment and when her unit returned from Iraq she was given an honorable discharge.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 17 May 1997
* DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 23 February 2004
* a memorandum, dated 24 February 2004, from Headquarters, 81st Regional Readiness Command (RRC), Birmingham, AL
* Headquarters, 81st RRC Orders 05-089-00013, dated 30 March 2005
* medical records from Cobb Memorial Hospital, Royston, GA


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.  On 28 September 1996, she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  She completed a period of active duty from 3 January to 17 May 1997.  

3.  U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort McPherson, GA Orders 03-287-00280, dated 14 October 2003, assigned her to the RRC, Trainees, Transients, Holdees and Students (TTHS) Account, effective 14 October 2003.

4.  She provided a DA Form 3349, dated 23 February 2004, placing her on permanent profile for diabetes mellitus.

	a.  Under "P" (physical capacity or stamina) of the physical profile she was assigned the numerical designator "4."  She was coded "E" and "F" from Table 
7-2 of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).
 
	b.  The profile indicated she needed a non-duty related Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

5.  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.  The memorandum stated that Soldiers who are medically disqualified and pending separation for non-duty related impairments may request a PEB solely for the purpose of fitness determination, and that Soldiers are not eligible for disability benefits for non-duty related impairments.

6.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notice to her regarding her medical disqualification and elected to request a PEB to review her medical records for a final determination of her medical fitness for retention.  There is no record of a PEB available for review.
7.  Headquarters, 81st RRC Orders 05-089-00013 dated 30 March 2005 discharged the applicant from the USAR effective 30 April 2005.  The authority is shown as Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) and the type of discharge is shown as honorable.

8.  The medical records submitted by the applicant show her continued treatment for diabetes mellitus.

9.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, separation, and retirement.

	a.  Paragraph 9-10 states normally, Reservists who do not meet the fitness standards set by chapter 3 will be transferred to the Retired Reserve or discharged from the USAR.  They will be transferred to the Retired Reserve only if eligible and if they apply for it.

	b.  Paragraph 9-12 states Reserve component Soldiers with non-duty related medical conditions who are pending separation for failing to meet the medical retention standards of chapter 3 of this regulation are eligible to request referral to a PEB for a determination of fitness.  Because these are cases of RC Soldiers with non-duty related medical conditions, MEBs are not required.

10.  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 govern the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  Under the laws governing the Army PDES, Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement or severance pay benefits:

	a.  The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training.

	b.  The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence.





DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  She contends she should be entitled to a medical discharge or a medical retirement based on her diabetes mellitus.  

2.  The 81st RRC Command Surgeon determined her medical condition was medically unacceptable and non-duty related.

3.  A Soldier with a non-duty related medical condition may request a PEB; however, the PEB would only determine fitness for duty.  That is, a Soldier requests such a PEB when he or she disagrees with the determination that he or she is not medically fit for retention.  

4.  In order to be processed through the PDES a disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training.  There is no evidence the applicant's medical condition was incurred while entitled to basic pay or was aggravated in the performance of active duty or inactive duty for training.  

5.  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 disability severance pay or a medical retirement.

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)                                         AR20130015881



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130015881



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070019012

    Original file (20070019012.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his records as follows: a. medical retirement instead of honorable discharge, which would, in effect, entitle him to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and disability; b. correction of his Chronological Statement of Retired Points to show he has 16 qualifying years for retirement instead of 15; and c. an opportunity to reenter the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and complete the remainder of his service to reach 20 qualifying years for non-regular...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007435

    Original file (20140007435.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2012 | 20120008770

    Original file (20120008770.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB proceedings do not show a recommendation or any other entries by Army officials; f. a DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) that shows a PEB convened on 17 April 2007 to evaluate the applicant's type II diabetes, well controlled on oral agents: (1) the board found the applicant fit for duty and returned him to duty, and (2) the applicant concurred with the PEB findings and recommendations on 19 April 2007; g. a VA Rating Decision, dated 3 May 2008, that shows the following decisions were...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004098

    Original file (20130004098.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 20100028537

    Original file (20100028537.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The presumption is that the Army was correct in retiring the Soldier with 15 years of military service for a non-line of duty condition. Instead, he was separated under the non-duty related process for conditions that he clearly received while on active duty. c. Paragraph 8-9 states that a Soldier not on extended active duty, who is unfit because of physical disability: (1) May be permanently retired or have his or her name placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL), if he or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003529

    Original file (20120003529.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    e. He was evaluated by the PDES while on active duty, determined fit for duty, and would now like to be afforded the same opportunity for conditions shown in the evidence he provides. The applicant provides: * FFDDB Acknowledgement Statement * DA Form 7349 (Initial Medical Review-Annual Medical Certificate) * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) * Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) * Memorandum, dated 3 March 2004 * Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) Order * Active Duty...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003434

    Original file (20140003434.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The memorandum indicated the applicant does not meet medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-39(h) and he has also reached his maximum years of service and should be retired from the service. Most of the applicant's medical records are not available for review with this case. An NDR PEB is a non-line of duty PEB that reviews the Soldier's condition solely for a determination of fitness for continued service in the RC.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015022

    Original file (20140015022.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision rendered by the VA Regional Office located in Seatac, WA, dated 4 September 2013, which shows he had the following conditions that were subject to compensation at the time at a combined disability rating of 40%: a. service-connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, 10% effective date 1 March 2013; b. service-connection for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, 10% effective date 1 March 2013; c. service-connection for bilateral tinnitus, 10%...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009854

    Original file (20140009854.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * he was denied his right to request referral to a PEB * he was not properly counseled regarding the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) process for Reservists * he was previously issued a permanent physical profile in 2004 while activated and underwent the PEB process which at the time found him fit for duty * he misunderstood the PEB process for a Reservist in a troop program unit to be the same as the PEB process he went through as an activated Reservist *...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015968

    Original file (20090015968.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His medical conditions developed during his period of service and were determined by Army Regulations (AR) and medical boards to be the reason for his disqualification for further service; therefore, he requests correction of the decision previously rendered in his case because the disqualifying conditions were not due to his own fault or misconduct. However, along with the notification, he would have been required to acknowledge the notification and elect one of the following options on...