Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016100
Original file (20130016100.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  27 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130016100 


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 uncharacterized discharge be changed to an honorable discharge by reason of physical disability (medical discharge).

2.  The applicant states that the medical board claimed he had a disability existing prior to service (EPTS) and he has obtained a statement from his doctor proving otherwise.  He never had asthma or any disability prior to his military service and his family doctor who has treated him since he was a child has provided a statement that proves he did not.  He has been to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) numerous times and they will not do anything for him.
 
3.  The applicant provides a statement from his family doctor.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 July 1993 for a period of 
3 years and training as a petroleum supply specialist.  He completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia to undergo advanced individual training.

3.  On 12 November 1993, the applicant submitted a request for separation and waiver of a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  He acknowledged that he understood his right to have his case considered by a PEB and elected not to exercise his right.  He also stated that he understood the VA would determine any entitlements to VA benefits.  He further indicated that he understood that if his application for separation was approved he would be separated by reason of an EPTS physical disability.

4.  On 16 November 1993, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened at Fort Lee.  The Narrative Summary for the MEB indicates the applicant presented with a 4-week history of progressive dyspnea (shortness of breath) on exertion requiring him to drop out of formation physical training after one-half to one mile, as well as severe dyspnea after climbing stairs.  It indicates that his medical history was remarkable for childhood asthma.  The applicant was diagnosed as having reactive airways disease and was determined to be unfit for active duty and recommended for an EPTS separation.  

5.  The MEB recommended he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5, due to EPTS Medical Conditions.  The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations of the MEB on 18 November 1993.

6.  Accordingly, on 24 November 1993, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5, due to disability, EPTS – medical board.  He had served 4 months and 15 days of active service and his service was uncharacterized.

7.  The statement, dated 8 July 2013, the applicant provided with his application is from the applicant’s family doctor and indicates the applicant does not now nor has he ever had asthma.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 provides the criteria for the separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment.  It states that medical proceedings must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authorities within 
6 months of initial active duty training which would have temporarily or permanently disqualified the member for entry into military service had it been detected at the time of enlistment.  While an honorable or general discharge may be issued when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty, personnel who are in an entry-level status (ELS) will receive “Uncharacterized” service.  An honorable discharge is rarely ever granted during the ELS period, which comprises the first 180 days of continuous active service or the first 180 days of continuous active service after a break in service of more than 92 days.  

9.  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.  It states that according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered the military service.  Examples are manifestation of lesions or symptoms of chronic disease from date of entry on active military service (or so close to that date of entry that the disease could not have started in so short a period) will be accepted as proof that the disease existed prior to entrance into active military service.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he should have been processed for a medical separation and that his service should be characterized as honorable has been noted and appears to lack merit.  The applicant was diagnosed as having reactive airways disease and it was an EPTS condition.

2.  The applicant submitted a request for separation and waiver of a PEB.  He further indicated that he understood that if his application for separation was approved he would be separated by reason of an EPTS physical disability.  He agreed with the finding of the MEB that his condition was EPTS.  If he believed the MEB was mistaken in finding his asthma to be an EPTS condition he could have disagreed with that finding, not requested separation, and requested consideration by a PEB to fight that finding.

3.  In the absence of evidence to show otherwise, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

4.  Accordingly, he was properly discharged after undergoing the required medical examinations and there is no basis to grant him a medical discharge for a condition he had when he enlisted. 

5.  While the applicant and his family doctor contend that the applicant did not have a medical condition, prior to enlistment it does not account for his repeated bouts of shortness of breath which were evaluated, treated, and diagnosed at the time.  Again, he agreed with the MEB’s finding and waived his right to a PEB.

6.  In regard to his characterization of service, his service was properly uncharacterized due to having served less than 180 days of active service.

7.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show otherwise, there appears to be no basis to grant 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)                                         AR20130016100



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130016100



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02461

    Original file (PD-2013-02461.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2013-02461BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE BOARD DATE: 20140724 SEPARATION DATE: 20050914 The next higher rating of 30% requires FEV-1 of 56% to 70% or FEV-1/FVC of 56%to 70% on PFT; or daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy; or inhalational anti-inflammatory (steroid) medication.The VA coded the lung condition analogous to chronic bronchitisas 6600 rated at 30% citing an FEV-1 of 60% from the PFT...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01960

    Original file (BC-2010-01960.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSD states the evidence reveals no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of separation. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. Exhibit E. Letter,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025486

    Original file (20100025486.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of item 24 (Character of Service) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show a medical reason instead of the current uncharacterized entry. On 27 May 1992, an MEB convened at Fort Lee, VA, and after consideration of the clinical records and, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the board found he had the EPTS medical condition of asthma. On 28 May 1992, a PEBLO (Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer)...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01773

    Original file (PD-2014-01773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Post-Sep (200 70104 ) FEV-1 (% of Predicted) 94 % pre-drug, 94 % post-drug 73.5 % FEV-1/FVC 76 % pre-drug, 76 % post-drug 65.5 % Medications intermittent use of inhaled bronchodilator in termittent use of inhaled bronchodilator§ 4.97 Rating 1 0% 30%The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the evidence above. The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6044.40, resides in evaluating the fairness of PEB fitness determinations and rating decisions for disability at the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00859

    Original file (PD 2012 00859.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB forwarded the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reactive disease as medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501, and no other conditions for PEB adjudication. The other requested conditions, “lumbrosacral” strain, chondromalacia patella right, hearing loss, and tinnitus are not within the Board’s purview. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016912

    Original file (20100016912.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-11 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards and that his character of service was "uncharacterized." A medical proceeding conducted by an EPSBD, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060368C070421

    Original file (2001060368C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. A military medical doctor gave the applicant a physical examination and determined, according to regulation and medical findings, that the applicant was not medically qualified for further retention in the military service. Additionally, since the asthma condition, which resulted in the applicant being medically unfit for retention, was EPTS and not incurred in the line...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01947

    Original file (BC-2005-01947.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied, and states, in part the applicant was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and was found unfit for continued military service based on asthma which existed prior to service. The applicant contends the determination that her asthma existed prior to her service was solely based on the single sentence in the MEB that she reported using an...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02345

    Original file (BC-2002-02345.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB recommended that he be discharged. On 31 Jul 01, the IPEB found him unfit for further military service based on a diagnosis of asthma and recommended that he be discharged with severance pay, with a compensable rating of 10%. He was diagnosed with asthma based on a clinical history consistent with the disease and positive methacholine bronchoprovocation testing.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01707

    Original file (PD-2013-01707.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2013-01707BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCEBOARD DATE: 20141107 The MEB physical exam noted a normal respiratory rate at rest and a normal lung examination.The MEB narrative summary (NARSUM)(5 months prior to separation) noted a diagnosis of “mild persistent asthma, with exercise induced component.” The MEB dated 5 August 2005 (performed 4 months prior to separation) recommended a return to duty. The IPEB (7...