Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016119
Original file (20130016119.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130016119 


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 the issuance of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) or a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214). 

2.  The applicant does not make a statement.  However, it appears he was considered by a physical evaluation board (PEB) in January 2006 for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The PEB recommended a 10-percent disability rating and separation with entitlement to severance pay.  It also appears he elected a transfer to the Retired Reserve vice the severance pay.  In 2012, his case was reconsidered and his separation orders were revoked.  He was placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) with a 50 percent disability rating and he was permanently retired 6 months later.  The letter he received from the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) mentioned that a DD Form 215 would be attached. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the USAPDA letter, dated 7 June 2012. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born in March 1949.

2.  Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant enlisted in the South Carolina Army National Guard (SCARNG) on 14 March 1983.  He served through multiple extensions in a variety of assignments. 

3.  On 8 June 1996, the SCARNG issued him a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter). 

4.  He entered active duty on 10 February 2003 and subsequently served in Iraq from 15 April 2003 to 5 March 2004.  He was released from active duty on 18 April 2004 to the control of his State ARNG and he was issued a DD Form 214 that captured this period of active service. 

5.  On 18 January 2006, an informal PEB considered his PTSD condition and found it unfitting.  The PEB rated his condition at 10 percent and recommended his separation with entitlement to severance pay.  He appears to have concurred and elected to transfer to the Retired Reserve vice accepting the severance pay.

6.  On 6 June 2006, the SCARNG published Orders 157-827 transferring him to the Retired Reserve effective 28 February 2006.

7.  On 3 October 2008, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command published Orders P10-815413 placing him on the Retired List in his retired grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6, effective 14 March 2009. 

8.  On 7 June 2012, by letter, the USAPDA notified him that a correction was made to his disability rating as a result of the settlement agreement in the Sabo class action lawsuit.  His separation order had been revoked and he is now issued orders placing him on the TDRL with a disability rating of 50 percent.  Additional orders were issued removing him from the TDRL on the 6th month anniversary and permanently retiring him with a disability rating of 70 percent per the settlement agreement.  The letter added that "Copies of all orders mentioned above, plus a copy of your DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) are attached." 

9.  On 7 June 2012, the USAPDA published two sets of orders: 

* Orders D159-35 placing him on the TDRL in his retired grade of SSG/E-6 effective 28 February 2006 
* Orders D159-36 removing him from the TDRL, effective 27 August 2006, and permanently retiring him with a 70 percent disability rating 

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The purpose of the separation document is to provide the individual with documentary


evidence of his or her military service.  The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active service.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's last period of active service was from 10 February 2003 to 18 April 2004.  He was issued a DD Form 214 that captured this period of active service.  He did not serve on active duty beyond this date; therefore, he was not issued a DD Form 214.  Without a DD Form 214, there would not be a need to issue a DD Form 215.  

2.  The fact that the Sabo settlement led to reconsideration of his case in 2012 and subsequent placement on the TDRL in February 2006 with permanent retirement in August 2006 did not mean he was on active duty.  The entry on the USAPDA letter is a standard entry placed on all similar letters and where applicable, a DD Form 215 is issued.  

3.  Since the applicant was not on active duty and since he did not perform any active duty of 90 days or more in duration (after 18 April 2004), there was no need to issue a DD Form 214.  The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active service.  The DD Form 215 is a correction of the DD Form 214 and carries the same meaning. 

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)                                         AR20130016119



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130016119



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015613

    Original file (20130015613.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE: 23. On 28 August 2013, new information was received from the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA), Arlington, VA, in regard to the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120019167, dated 11 July 2013. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant amendment of the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120019167, dated 11 July 2013 to further correct...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004375

    Original file (20150004375.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 ending on 27 February 2007 * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) * Listing of Iraq/Afghanistan Campaign Medals and designated phases * TDRL retirement orders * PDRL retirement orders * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) * 2005 mobilization orders * 2007 release from active duty orders COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007033

    Original file (20150007033.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * his previous request to the Board resulted in overturning the May 2008 physical evaluation board (PEB) decision and placing him on the TDRL effective 23 September 2008, which needs further correcting to show the effective date as 31 December 2008 * he originally out-processed from the Army on 31 December 2008 * Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) calculations show he ought to have those extra days from 23 September 2008 through 31 December 2008 added to his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003426

    Original file (20120003426.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    At the time the applicant was medically separated the VASRD provided that when a mental disorder develops in service as a result of a highly stressful event and is severe enough to bring about a veteran's release from active military service, the rating agency shall assign an evaluation of not less than 50 percent for PTSD and the Physical Evaluation Board’s failure to do so violated the applicant's legal right. Based on available applicable evidence, the PDA should reevaluate the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016426C071113

    Original file (20060016426C071113.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After reviewing the applicant’s case, the PEB found that the applicant was physically unfit and recommended that the applicant be retired by reason of "Permanent Disability." He stated that he was told that his retirement pay would not change from the 50 percent he was receiving while on TDRL status. The applicant’s request for an increase to the disability rating he was assigned by the PEB and the supporting evidence he provided were carefully considered.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007332

    Original file (20100007332.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests a new DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to add any missing/incomplete information and to show he was medically retired. The applicant provides a copy of the following documents: * Headquarters, III Corps, Fort Hood, TX, Permanent Orders 136-4, dated 16 May 2002 * his DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 September 2002 * U. S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA), Washington, DC, Orders D123-01, dated 3 May 2006 * National Guard...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014556

    Original file (20060014556.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant further states that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided him a disability rating of 60 percent with 30 percent of that for radiculopathy and pain in his left arm/hand. In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents: a. DD Form 214, which shows, in pertinent part, he was placed on the TDRL, effective 2 September 2004. b. DA Form 199, dated 27 January 2006, which shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant was evaluated for the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017285

    Original file (20120017285.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Counsel contends: * the applicant fulfills the preliminary requirements for CRSC issued by the Department of Defense (DOD) * the applicant fulfills the requirements for CRSC under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1413a * the applicant is entitled to retired pay * the applicant incurred combat-related disabilities as a direct result of armed conflict * the PEB confirmed that the applicant incurred PTSD in the line of duty (LOD) as the direct result of armed conflict * the CRSC Board's denials...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010744

    Original file (20110010744.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, a new DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) or DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to show he was retired due to permanent disability. The evidence shows the applicant entered active duty in support of OIF on 16 August 2004 and he was discharged on 7 January 2007 for physical disability. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000647

    Original file (20090000647.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In 2006, the VA rated his disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, at 100-percent disabling. Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant's discharge should be changed from medically separated with severance pay to retirement with permanent disability. The fact that the VA increased his disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder from 50 percent to 100 percent 5 years after the applicant was discharged from the TDRL does not show that his rating by the Army was in error.