Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009705
Original file (20140009705.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140009705 


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 an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge for entry level service based on physical disability to an honorable discharge with no physical disability.  He also requests a change of his separation code and his reentry code (RE) from RE “3” to RE “2. 

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He believes that he had problems during basic training due to fear and anxiety that no longer exist because he has matured.  

	b.  He was coerced into saying things about his medical history that just are not true.  These include his reporting a history of past headaches.  The medical records also report things he never said.  

	c.  What happened to him in the service had nothing to do with his pre-service vehicle accident or any other pre-service incident.  

	d.  He consulted a neurologist who ordered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and examined his medical history.  She is confident he is capable of strenuous exercise.  

	e.  He is not asking for a handout but rather a chance to finish what he started and a chance to show what he has achieved, so far, in college.  If given another chance, he is willing to sign a waiver relieving the Army of any responsibility for any physical problems through basic training.  His goal is to continue his education and become a physician assistant.

3.  The applicant provides copies of – 

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period of service from 4 January to 1 June 2006
* 13 October 2010 medical examination by Diane R____, M.D.
* 20 October 2010 MRI report 
* 27 October 2010 review of the case by Dr. Diane R____, M.D.
* Discharge Summary for a 24 January to 6 February 2006 hospitalization
* DD Form 2215E (Reference Audiogram), dated 22 March 2006
* DA Form 4287 (Personnel Action) dated 16 February 2006

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 and entered active duty on 4 January 2006.

3.  On 17 January 2006, he received medical treatment at an Army hospital emergency department for complaints of intermittent headaches and bilateral leg weakness.  Following an initial computed tomography (CT) scan which suggested various possible abnormalities, he was transferred to a civilian facility for more extensive testing.

4.  Subsequently, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found the applicant medically unqualified for continued service and recommended his case be considered by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The applicant agreed with the MEB's findings and recommendations.  The PEB rated his disability at 20 percent.  The applicant concurred and waived formal consideration of his case.  
5.  The Physical Disability Agency determined the applicant’s condition existed prior to his entry onto active service and was not aggravated by the service.  

6.  Consequently, on 1 June 2006, he was separated due to physical disability and assigned a separation program designator code of “JFL” and a RE of “3.”

7.  The documents the applicant submitted in support of his request include:

	a.  A medical examination report, dated 13 October 2010, signed by Diane R____, M.D. who recorded the applicant's history as he reported it, conducted a physical examination and ordered an MRI.

	b.  The radiologist’s report shows:

Small scattered nonspecific cerebral white matter lesions.  As described on previous report these are slightly greater than typically seen for the patient's age.  This could be related to a history of migraine headaches or old head trauma.  These type lesions can be seen with micro vascular ischemia as in a setting of hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and or collagen vascular disease.

	c.  The Discharge Summary for his 24 January through 6 February 2006 hospitalization is part of his military medical records.

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him/her and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a MEB.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a PEB for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and MOS with the medically-disqualifying condition.  The PEB evaluates all cases of physical disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army.  The PEB investigates the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers whose cases are referred to the board.  Finally, it makes findings and recommendations required by law to establish the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides instructions for determining the RE code for Active Army and Reserve Component Soldiers.  This cross reference table shows SPD code JFL has a corresponding RE code of 3.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests that his discharge be changed to honorable and that his RE code be changed to RE-2 so that he can reenlist.  He claims that his military medical records report a pre-service history that he did not provide and that he was forced to relate things that are not true. 

2.  There is no available evidence to support the applicant's contention that his medical history is anything other than what is recorded in his military medical records.  He could have submitted a copy of his complete pre-service medical records to show that the information was, at least, inaccurate.

3.  The applicant was separated for a physical disability that existed prior to his entry onto active service.  There is no basis for changing the reason for discharge or the RE code as he did not meet physical entrance or retention standards.  

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of 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)                                         AR20120005657



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140009705



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02121

    Original file (PD-2014-02121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A neurology evaluation performed on 1March 2005 as part of his pain evaluation. The chest wall pain was diagnosed as costo-chondritis and the left upper arm pain was secondary to both a blood clot and a neuropathy of the ulnar nerve. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.The...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00179

    Original file (PD2012-00179.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PEB adjudicated the left hip condition and bilateral knee condition, bundling them together, and the chronic posttraumatic migraine headaches condition as unfitting, rated 10% and 10% respectively, with application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. Therefore the Board agreed based on the time of separation the 8100 code could not be considered for a higher rating. In the matter of the left hip and bilateral knee condition, the Board unanimously recommends...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00613

    Original file (PD2011-00613.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    CI CONTENTION : “The Medical board concentrated on my Left Knee, but neglected to review my back, right knee, shoulders, feet, and head (migraines from airborne). The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. In the matter of the left knee condition, the Board unanimously recommends a service...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00863

    Original file (PD2010-00863.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    I then went before the formal board and received 10% with a disability code of 7121 which allows up to 30% disability rating which would have allowed me to retire.” In block 14 of the DD Form 294 he notes: “The following is the VA decision on disability: I was rated at 60% disabled with the following determinations: Right Kidney Cortical Atrophy with Compensatory Left Kidney Hypertrophy with Residual Thinning & Scarring, Aortic Valve Insufficiency with Regurgitation, Mitral Valve...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01108

    Original file (PD-2013-01108.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    CI CONTENTION : “The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) medically separate [ sic ] me with a 10% rating and I contend that it should have been more than what the medical board granted! The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002079

    Original file (20090002079.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In summary, the applicant states: a. that in 1993 and 1994, while on active duty, he suffered a generalized seizure, two grand mal seizures, and two strokes with hemorrhage; b. that Army personnel initially dismissed his symptoms; c. that his family, including his brother who is a medical doctor, took him to private medical doctors who addressed his symptoms and had him transferred to Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC); d. that the supervising doctor at WRAMC was unable to diagnose the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00530

    Original file (PD2009-00530.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Neuropsychological testing was done from October 11-13, 2005, nine months prior to separation, to evaluate subjective complaints of impaired memory. The CI also noted irritability. The Board determined therefore that none of the stated conditions were subject to service disability rating.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02535

    Original file (PD-2013-02535.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My medical condition even caused me to suffer a stroke from the severe migraine headaches that I still haveto this day. Pre-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Vascular Headache (Migraine)810010%Migraine Headache Disorder810030%20040319Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 520040319 Combined: 10%Combined: 50% * Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20040607(most proximate to date of separation) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The Board acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05881

    Original file (BC 2012 05881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The 2003 surgery and disc herniation was not “in the line of duty,” so she is predisposed for back pain/disc herniation from a pre-existing non-military back injury.” On 28 Aug 07, an Informal LOD determination concluded the applicant’s major depressive disorder related to her back pain was “in the line of duty.” On 29 Aug 07, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded the applicant a 100 percent combined disability rating, based upon the loss of use of both lower extremities. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05881

    Original file (BC 2012 05881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The 2003 surgery and disc herniation was not “in the line of duty,” so she is predisposed for back pain/disc herniation from a pre-existing non-military back injury.” On 28 Aug 07, an Informal LOD determination concluded the applicant’s major depressive disorder related to her back pain was “in the line of duty.” On 29 Aug 07, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded the applicant a 100 percent combined disability rating, based upon the loss of use of both lower extremities. The...