Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000050
Original file (20140000050.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 September 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140000050 


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 reconsideration of the following earlier requests:

	a.  revocation of his honorable discharge for completion of required active service;

	b.  reinstatement in the Army in the rank/grade of command sergeant major (CSM)/E-9; and

	c.  a medical evaluation board (MEB) for frostbite injuries.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  Throughout the years he has complained about his feet.  However, the time period between his separation and going to prison in 1985 he never complained about his ailing feet because there was no inquiring medical staff.  The military told him there was nothing wrong with him during his separation examination.

	b.  He should have received the benefit of an MEB.  Instead, he was reassigned and given a new military occupational specialty of 71L (administrative specialist).  He was housed in World War II billets with wooden floors, which hurt his feet.  After his separation, his employment required him to work on concrete floors, which caused him pain.  He quit his job and began spiraling until he landed in prison.

	c.  During his separation physical examination he made the doctors aware of his cold weather injury that took place in Germany, but he didn't get a response or feedback leading him to believe there was nothing medically wrong with him.

	d.  Had he received the benefits of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) he would have more than likely reenlisted and retired or at least been more aware of having a medical disability.  He would have been better able to cope with the transition to civilian life while also receiving disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  If he had remained in a career status, he would not have remained a specialist four (SP4)/E-4.

	e.  The VA rated him as 20-percent disabled in 2005 before he became wheelchair bound.

3.  The applicant provides:

* VA Rating Decision, dated 1 February 2005
* one page of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II)
* service medical records
* Department of Corrections medical records

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120018445, on 15 October 2013.

2.  The applicant provided service medical records, dated between December 1976 and April 1977, which show he was treated for the following complaints:

* cold weather injury to his feet
* right hand injury
* foot problems

3.  He provided medical records from the Department of Corrections, dated between 1985 and 2004, which show he was treated for the following complaints:

* left foot/ankle problem
* ingrown toenails
* jock itch and athletes foot
* left foot pain
* cough/congestion
* left knee pain
* cold feet 

4.  He also provided a VA Rating Decision, dated 1 February 2005, which shows he was granted disability compensation for residuals of frostbite, left lower extremity (10 percent), and residuals of frostbite, right lower extremity (10 percent).  His combined disability rating is 20 percent.

5.  The documentation provided by the applicant is new evidence that will now be considered by the Board.

6.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 January 1976 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  He served in Germany from 6 July 1976 to 3 May 1977.

7.  He was counseled for:

* misconduct in the barracks
* making false accusations
* failing to follow instructions
* failing to participate in the unit physical training program
* being disrespectful toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
* assaulting another Soldier

8.  He received nonjudicial punishment on four occasions for:

* being disrespectful in language toward an NCO
* failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* assaulting an NCO
* wrongfully using another Soldier's military meal pass with the intent to defraud and for the procurement of rations

9.  He was convicted by a special court-martial of being disrespectful in language toward an NCO and for assaulting an NCO.

10.  He provided a Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 30 January 1979, which shows he reported:

* "At the present my health is fine"
* he had foot trouble – his feet ache in hot weather post cold weather injury

11.  He was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 22 March 1979 in the rank of SP4 for completion of his required active service and he was transferred to U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his remaining service obligation.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 2, in effect at the time, pertained to discharge or release from the Active Army upon termination of enlistment, period of induction, and other period of active duty or active duty for training.  It stipulated an individual enlisted, inducted, or ordered to active duty normally would be discharged or released from active duty on the date upon which he/she completes the period for which enlisted, inducted, or ordered to active duty.

13.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides for disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

14.  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.  The unfitness must be of such a degree that a Soldier is unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his or her employment on active duty.

15.  Army Regulation 635-40 states disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  It states the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.

16.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permit the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant was honorably REFRAD on 22 March 1979 upon completion of his required active service.  There is no evidence his separation was not accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  Therefore, there is no basis for revoking his 22 March 1979 separation.

2.  The evidence shows he was serving in the rank/grade of SP4/E-4 at the time of his REFRAD.  He contends he might have attained the rank of CSM had he remained in the Army.  However, it would be purely speculative to presume that if he had remained in the Army he would have been selected for promotion to any higher grade.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting his requested relief for reinstatement in the Army at the rank/pay grade of CSM/E-9.

3.  His request for an MEB for frostbite injuries was carefully considered.  It is acknowledged he was treated for cold weather injuries to his feet in 1976.  However, there is no evidence that he was ever given a permanent physical profile for a foot condition.  The medical evidence he provided shows he reported he had foot trouble on 30 January 1979, but he also indicated his health was "fine."  More importantly, there is no evidence that shows he could not perform his military duties.

4.  The mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  The available evidence shows the applicant was fully capable of performing his military duties.

5.  It is acknowledged the VA has granted him a 20 percent disability rating for residuals of frostbite, left and right lower extremities.  However, the rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, and assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an MEB.



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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120018445, dated 15 October 2013.



      _____________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)                                         AR20140000050



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140000050



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006992C070206

    Original file (20050006992C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's separation medical examination stated that the applicant sustained trench foot to both feet which bothered him since December of 1944. The evidence in this case indicates that the applicant sustained cold weather injuries to both feet diagnosed by military medical authorities as "trench foot." Evidence of record shows that the applicant was diagnosed by medical authorities at the time of his separation and subsequently by DVA medical authorities with residuals of "trench foot."

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00838

    Original file (PD-2012-00838.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY CASE NUMBER: PD1200838 SEPARATION DATE: 20021101 BOARD DATE: 20130326 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty PVT/E-2 (12B10/Combat Engineer) medically separated for painful feet due to cold weather injury and peripheral neuropathy. During the gait exam, the CI stated he felt “as if he was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098228C070212

    Original file (03098228C070212.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. With the exception of documents associated with the treatment of the applicant’s trench foot and medical processing, the applicant’s remaining military records, including a separation document, were not available to the Board for review. Nevertheless, the case comes down to diagnosis and the medical authorities who were present on the scene and had the authority to award the Purple Heart.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03096166C070212

    Original file (03096166C070212.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. An individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which confirms that he was physically unfit to perform his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004301C070208

    Original file (20040004301C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that the VA has awarded him a 40 percent disability rating for his cold weather injuries. On 26 February 2003, a mental status evaluation diagnosed the applicant with an adjustment disorder with anxious mood and a personality disorder not otherwise specified. Unfortunately, absent evidence that shows the applicant was evaluated by an unqualified individual the Board must presume that Captains Va___ and Vi___ made a valid medical determination that he suffered from a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009881

    Original file (20060009881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He claims these medical treatment records were not considered by the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR) during its original review of his case, and he asks for reconsideration of his request for the PH based on these medical documents. During its original review of the applicant's case, the Board found insufficient evidence to support award of the PH based on the applicant's cold weather injury, or that this injury raised to the level of "frostbite", which was required...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001239

    Original file (20080001239.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    To this day he suffers from cold feet trying to sleep, even while wearing socks or an extra blanket over his feet. The applicant provided an information paper on frostbite which stated that frostbite can be a serious condition. Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to amend his WD AGO Form 53-98 to add the POW Medal and to show he is eligible to wear two bronze service stars on his already-awarded...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059168C070421

    Original file (2001059168C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The affidavit and those statements, however, were not included as part of the applicant’s petition to the Board and were not in available records. Clearly the applicant sustained a cold weather injury to his feet during the Battle of the Bulge which was sufficiently severe to warrant his hospitalization for nearly two months and for the VA to subsequently award him disability compensation. While the medical diagnosis of trenchfoot and frostbite was widely debated during World War II, as...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002272

    Original file (20130002272.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * he should have had a medical board * the evidence shows he should have been given a disability rating * the injuries that need to be addressed are flat feet (pes planus with plantar fasciitis), cold weather frostbite, and a skin condition * all three conditions are chronic to this day * these injuries began when he was on active duty * these conditions are being treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) now * if proper information had been given during his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007572

    Original file (20100007572.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's military records are not available to the Board for review. The applicant previously submitted various medical documents showing treatment for an abscess on his left leg; however, none of his documents showed a cold weather injury. Notwithstanding the applicant's sincerity, in the absence of additional documentation that conclusively shows he was wounded or injured as a result of hostile action or that he suffered a severe cold weather injury while engaged in combat and...