IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  4 January 2021

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180011083


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  in effect, a change in the narrative reason for his separation 
to reflect a medical retirement and a personal appearance before the Board.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Self-Authored Statement (19 pages)
*	Timeline of Key Events (49 pages)
*	List of Exhibits
*	Medical Waiver Request dated 23 July 1999
*	Medical Determination dated 25 June 2001
*	Orders 163-0005 dated 12 June 2007
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Civilian Medical Separation Notice dated 21 May 2010
*	Orders D-03-305257 dated 29 March 2013
*	Social Security Administration (SSA) Decision dated 14 August 2014
*	State University (ASU) Voluntary Withdrawal dated 30 April 2018
*	Ten Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Decisions
*	Five Letters of Support
*	Medical Records (715 pages)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code, section 1552(b); however, the ABCMR conducted a substantive review of 
this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to 
timely file.

2.  The applicant states he respectfully requests his discharge be changed to reflect an 
honorable medical retirement.

	a.  He should have been considered non-deployable at the time of his separation as 
a result of his psychological and physical status, as reported through medical visits, 
online post-deployment assessments, and his medical exams upon separation.  He 
completed the appropriate forms and attended one-on-one sessions, but there was no 
real encouragement for him to follow or any follow-up from the professionals he sought 
care from.  He was never made aware of the possibility of a medical retirement board 
for psychiatric/psychological injuries.  He believes the Army in 2007 did not encourage 
admitting to psychological injury, it was not encouraged by heath care professionals, 
and it would have been career ending.  He would have been subjected to ridicule and 
shame.  He could not go to his command for help and relied on the professionals.

	b.  His physical and mental conditions deteriorated over time.  He suffers from post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), he endured four shoulder 
surgeries (two total replacements), one foot surgery, two hospitalizations for suicide, 
and severe migraine headaches.  He is unemployable as a result of his health.  The 
injuries to his feet, his shoulders, and his migraine headaches would have never 
allowed him to sustain the life of a Soldier.  He could not hold commands if he were on 
regular profiles and the injuries have progressed with treatment.

	c.  He did not suffer psychological issues as a child outside of the death of a friend 
from illness, nor has he suffered any physical or psychological trauma since the issues 
of which he now complains.  According to professionals, his PTSD is attributed directly 
to the mental trauma he experienced in combat in Iraq.  He was unable to process the 
situation at the time, due to the circumstances he was in, but it was a valuable coping 
mechanism.  He now suffers from chronic conditions, but was delayed in submitting his 
application due to ongoing treatment and awaiting completion of evaluation.

3.  The applicant provides:

   a.  A self-authored statement (18 pages) which provides details of his early 
childhood, schools attended, duty assignments, combat deployments, descriptions of 
physical and psychological challenges, life after the military, family life which led to 
divorce, and subsequent medical visits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
and numerous physicians.

   b.  A timeline of key events (49 pages) from his medical evaluation physical to enter 
the military in June 2001 through his subsequent visits with VA for PTSD in June 2018.

   c.  A list of exhibits.

   d.  A Medical Waiver Request memorandum, dated 23 July 1999, approving the 
applicant’s request for a medical waiver due to migraine headaches.  His waiver was 
granted for scholarship participation, advanced course enrollment, airborne/ranger 
training, and combat arms assignments. 
    
   e.  A Medical Determination, dated 25 June 2001, indicating the applicant was fully 
qualified under Chapter 2, Army Regulation 40-501.

   f.  Orders 163-0005, dated 12 June 2007, which discharged the applicant from active 
duty with an effective date of 1 February 2009; however, his Reserve obligation 
extended through 14 June 2010.

   g.  A Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty for his active service from 
15 June 2006 to 1 February 2008.

   h.  A letter from a Sheriff, dated 21 May 2010, notifying the applicant of his 
separation from civilian employment.  He was restricted from working for the Sheriff’s 
Department since 18 August 2009, his leave was extended, there was no estimated 
return date, and the County would be medically separating him from employment 
effective 4 June 2010.

   i.  Orders D-03-305257, dated 29 March 2013, which honorably discharged the 
applicant from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) effective 29 March 2013.

   j.  An SSA Decision, dated 14 August 2014, which notified the applicant of his fully 
favorable decision.  He was considered disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the 
Social Security Act with an effective date of 1 February 2008.

   k.  A Voluntary Complete Withdrawal from a Graduate Degree Program, dated 
30 April 2018, which indicated the applicant was withdrawing from the School of 
Criminology and Criminal Justice due to increased PTSD and TBI symptoms.

   l.  Ten VA Decisions:

*	18 June 2008 an explanation of the VA decision made for service connection 
which included 10% for degenerative joint disease (left shoulder), 10% for 
PTSD, and 10% for prostrating headaches, migraines
*	27 June 2008 the amount for a monthly entitlement for service connected 
compensation received on 6 February 2008
*	23 April 2010 the VA increased his evaluation for PTSD with panic disorder to 
70% effective 26 August 2009
*	30 April 2010 a change in compensation rating adjustment from 10% to 70% 
effective 26 September 2009 and a change in spouse status
*	19 March 2013 his service connection for post total shoulder replacement 
was granted with 100% effective 22 August 2012 and TBI granted with 40% 
effective 8 September 2010
*	29 March 2013 provided compensation adjustments for individual 
unemployability and a compensation rating with TBI added at 40% and 
bilateral plantar fasciitis at 10%
*	30 January 2015 a temporary evaluation of 100% was assigned effective 23 
May 2012 only warranted for 13 months following prosthetic replacement of 
the shoulder, increase from 10% to 50% for bilateral plantar fasciitis effective 
9 April 2014 and increase for prostrating headaches, migraines from 10% to 
30% effective 25 March 2014
*	9 February 2015 a cost of living adjustment
*	18 January 2016 monthly entitlement amount changes due to special monthly 
compensation adjustments
*	18 July 2016 change in special monthly compensation adjustments

   m.  Five letters of support:
   
(1)	 A letter from his father, D, dated 11 June 2018, which states he was also an 
ROTC graduate from the University of  and he served in Vietnam.  He 
returned and served in the  Army National Guard for over 20 years and retired 
as a colonel.  The applicant followed in his footsteps, and at the time he was in excellent 
physical and mental condition.  He and his wife visited with the applicant and his wife at 
numerous duty locations and he was full of enthusiasm.  The applicant deployed to 
Afghanistan and then Iraq.  He was surprised to hear that he was leaving the Army 
shortly upon his return because he thought his son would make it career.  His son was 
not the same strong man of enthusiasm, he was not the same husband, or the same 
friend.  The marriage soon ended and he was disappointed that his son would not even 
consider a career in the National Guard.  His son had changed and the pre-deployment 
son would have considered it out of respect for his father.  He and his wife began to 
look for help for their son in the mental health arena.
   
(2)	 The applicant shared with his father that he sought help in the military; 
however, there was no real follow up beyond the availability of group sessions and 
medications.  He does not believe that an officer could participate in such group 
processes while in uniform.  The applicant also believed it would be the “kiss of death” 
to his career if he reported those problems to his chain of command.  His son believed 
that once he was out of the Army the situation would improve and go away, but he had 
no idea of the dismal future ahead.  He was unaware of the possibility of a medical 
discharge since the problems were undefined and took a voluntary discharge when his 
active obligation was over.  The applicant began to see practitioners and open up about 
his combat experiences.  He attended a 6 month sheriff academy and did well, but they 
had to push him to return on Sunday night after the weekend.  His PTSD only worsened 
with the exposure of law enforcement.  The applicant then shared with his physician 
additional details that led to his combat trauma.

(3)	 The applicant moved to Colorado near his brother in law.  He believes the 
applicant was getting away from his past since he had once been a young talent with a 
great future, but now had very little going for him.  He and his wife soon followed in 
2014, selling their home of 40 years, after the applicant’s suicide attempt.  He was not 
receiving the support they anticipated from the mental health folks outside of the 
monthly visit.  In 2016, the applicant was not responsive to his calls and he drove to his 
home.  He found him unresponsive lying in his bed with his dress blues and surrounded 
by military photos.  He was transported to a hospital where he admitted to overdosing 
and on discharge was sent to an outpatient facility for evaluation.  He was not seen for 
an additional 3 weeks by the Colorado VA.  The applicant shifted his care to Denver and 
was seen for his left shoulder, PTSD, and TBI.  He continued care with the Marcus 
Institute for Brain Health and gained a better understanding of his mental health issues.

(4)	 A letter from H, dated 6 April 2018, states he and the applicant met as 
staff officers after their return from deployment.  They were both hand selected to serve 
as Operations Officers for a new program in Iraq and were sent to Fort Hood, TX to 
conduct their deployment “workup.”  They were in Iraq during the “surge” and the 
sectarian violence from 2006 to 2007.  He and the applicant were sent to different 
areas.  The area they were in did not have much protection outside of concertina wire 
and security personnel.  They were attacked regularly for a period of 9 months.  He 
believed they were given subpar training for the mission.  The intensity of the fighting 
was like something he had never seen before and he believed they were attacked 
regularly because they moved in three vehicles with no support.  Upon return, the 
applicant was given the task of being a brigade executive officer, but although he had a 
reputation of being one of the best officers in Hawaii, he could tell the applicant was 
very stressed.  He spoke to the applicant and could immediately see that their 
experiences in Iraq had changed them for the worse.  They believed as officers they 
had to “suck it up.”  They discussed the night terrors they would have and it impacted 
their personality and mood.  The applicant became more insular and less outgoing with 
time and they believed it was best for them both to leave the Army.  No one ever told 
them they could receive a medical retirement for psychological issues that stemmed 
from trauma derived from Iraq.

(5)	 A memorandum for record from Major D, dated 22 March 2018, which 
states he served with the applicant on three different occasions.  He served with him in 
Korea from June 2003 to June 2004 where he can attest to the applicant being rated as 
the number one lieutenant in the entire battalion for his exceptional performance.  He 
served with him again in Hawaii where the applicant was hand selected to serve as the 
brigade executive officer because he was the best captain in the brigade.  The applicant 
deployed twice during that time and shared with him that the traumatic experiences 
caused him to have symptoms now universally accepted as PTSD.  He personally 
witnessed his stress on several occasions and was being considered for yet another 
deployment.  The applicant elected to resign his commission, but he believes that his 
struggle to cope with PTSD also led to his divorce.  He did not believe there was a 
system in place for medically separating from the Army for PTSD, although there was a 
system in place for physical wounds in combat.  He believes if the applicant would have 
received treatment for PTSD, he would have likely been a lieutenant colonel in the Army 
and would not have had to resign his commission.  He could have been medically 
retired from active duty.

(6)	 A letter from S, dated 10 May 2018, which states he knew the applicant and 
his wife before he deployed to Iraq.  They were fellow officers in the same brigade and 
became social friends.  He recalls the care in Hawaii was not advanced nor patient 
focused.  There were group treatments where the enlisted and officers were lumped 
together.  He believed it undermined the limits of authority for officers.  PTSD was also 
known as a career killer with the stigma to avoid it at all cost.  S kept his problems to 
himself, but had support above him when needed.  The applicant returned from 
deployment a different person.  He received life changing injuries that essentially went 
untreated because the mental health community in Hawaii was unable to identify and 
treat Soldiers suffering from PTSD.  He withdrew from his circle of friends, he walked 
with his eyes focused on the ground, he appeared deflated, and contemplated suicide 
many times as he made the harsh decision to leave a career in the Army.  The applicant 
had learned to cope with his problems with support from former fellow officers and 
family.

(7)	 A letter from his ex-wife S, dated 29 May 2018, which states after the 
applicant returned from Iraq it was a very dark time that devastated their marriage.  She 
met the applicant in college and he was confident, determined, assertive, and 
thoughtful, but he changed a great deal after the deployment to Iraq.  She was 
completely shut out, he was angry, and his temper was horrendous.  She walked 
around on eggshells hoping he would not yell at her or lash out.  He never physically 
abused her, but the mental abuse was enough.  She lost confidence in herself with the 
constant yelling and critiquing, and did not want to go out because the way he treated 
her was embarrassing.  The applicant experienced nightmares and pack attacks, yet 
she was ill equipped or too withdrawn to know how to help.  At her request he finally 
sought help from the medical facilities in Hawaii, but he refused to go to marriage 
counseling.  They both knew their marriage and his mental health would not endure 
another deployment and decided it was best if he left the military.  They hoped their 
marriage would get a second chance; however, his behavior continued and she was 
shut out of his life.  They were living in isolation under the same roof with only hostility 
between them.  Their marriage eventually imploded and they both returned to their 
parents.  Soldiers are returning from deployments broken, without proper care, and 
families are collateral damage.  She found a job where she could get the psychological 
help and counseling she also needed.  The applicant had so much to offer the world, yet 
dealing with his injuries has become his life’s work.

   n.  His medical records (715 pages) for treatment received from his medical 
examination as an ROTC cadet on 25 June 2000 through the treatment received at the 
Marcus Institute for Brian Health on 18 May 2018.  

4.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows:

   a.  He entered active duty on 15 June 2002.

	b.  On 27 November 2002, the applicant successfully completed the Military Police 
Officer Basic Course.

   c.  His foreign/overseas service includes:

*	Korea from 26 December 2002 to 18 December 2003
*	Afghanistan from 7 April 2004 to 4 October 2004
*	Iraq from 24 January 2006 to 11 February 2007

   d.  Orders 163-0005, dated 12 June 2007, discharged the applicant from the Regular 
Army with an effective date of 1 February 2008 and a termination date of reserve 
obligation of 14 June 2010.

	e.  On 1 February 2008, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 3-5.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 5 years, 
7 months, and 17 days of active service.  He was assigned separation code FND and 
the narrative reason for separation "Miscellaneous/General Reasons."  

5.  The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant's records in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal 
Technology Application (AHLTA), as well as the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The 
Interactive Personnel Records Management System (IPERMS) and civilian medical 
documentation were reviewed as well. The following findings and recommendations are 
noted.

   a.	A Post Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA), dated 16 November 2007, 
indicated his affirmative responses for “nightmares, avoid situations…conflict with 
spouse,” as well as hypervigilant behavior. It further indicated significant concerns with 
“depression, /PTSD symptoms, anger, social family.” A Report of Medical History, dated 
26 November 2007, noted his concerns with “anxiety, nightmares, extremely painful, 
debilitating migraine headaches, mild depression”.

   b.	A VA C&P Evaluation, dated 22 January 2011, by a Clinical Psychologist 
diagnosed “PTSD Secondary to Combat experience in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, 
Cognitive Disorder NOS, Major Depressive Disorder, with some panic attacks.” A letter 
documented sessions dated 20 March, 1, 8 and 15 April 2008, and noted “working 
diagnoses PTSD and marital problems/divorcing." Another letter, dated 14 August 2009, 
diagnosed him with “PTSD.” 

   c.	Included with the ABCMR application, he claimed, “While I knew of medical 
retirement boards for physical injuries, I was never made aware of any such board for 
psychiatric/psychological injuries, either through the mental health care professionals I 
sought care through, or the various forms I filled out seeking help. Our Army culture at 
the time of 2007 was not one conducive to an officer admitting to a psychological injury.” 
Referencing his reaction to traumatic experiences in Iraq, he indicated, “My mental state 
was rapidly declining. The nightmares had gotten so bad that I could now taste blood. I 
could smell gunpowder and I could hear radio static. These sights, sounds and smells 
became very vivid and intense. My nightmares also started to include things that never 
happened but the things I feared most; the insurgents setting the trap and pinning us in; 
dropping mortars on us; getting kidnapped in the safe house; getting hit with the newest 
road side bomb (EFP). As these symptoms got worse, I would do my best not to think 
about Iraq, but reminders seemed to be everywhere. I could not close my eyes without 
thinking about Iraq. Meanwhile these nightmares become so real I thought I was really 
in Iraq. I would thrash and yell in bed. My wife would wake me up and I would be 
soaked in sweat. This was a nightly occurrence. Sometimes I would hear and see the 
lady with her baby cut in half. I could hear the shrieking of the Iraqi women. I became 
afraid of the dark to the extent I could not take our trash out at night I could not take a 
shower alone because I was afraid to close my eyes.”

   d.	Review of the military electronic medical record (AHLTA) indicates a number of 
behavioral health notes. At the Neurology Clinic, AMC Tripler Shafter, dated 8 March 
2007, an assessment by a medical doctor indicated, “the patient was seen 
approximately 1 year ago concerning his MHA’s. patient is having 2-3 HA’s (MHA) Q 
month that can last up to 24 hours. The patient always has a visual aura 10-20 minutes 
prior to the onset of the HA. The HA is usually on the L side of his head 8-9/10 constant 
pain intensity. These HA’s can improve with sleep. The patient describes another HA 
that he has approximately every other day. These HA’s are 5/10 and develop 
throughout the day. There is no aura. The HA is constant. He feels they are triggered by 
not eating.” He was diagnosed with “Headache Syndrome.” He was referred to the 
physician since “AD SM redeploying from1 yr tour in Iraq with c/o Migraines once a 
week with aura.” 

   e.	A clinical note at the SB Soldier Assistance Center, Desmond Doss Health Clinic, 
Schofield Barracks AHC, dated 1 November 2007, by a licensed clinical social worker 
(LCSW) noted “PT with cc of extreme anxiety and nightmares. PT reports he is 
functioning as a 12 yr old who is fearful of the dark, doing things and being alone when 
spouse was away for 5 days. PT did speak with Ms. L and agreed to begin celexa and 
minipress…Psychiatric diagnosis or condition deferred on Axis I.” Another clinical note 
the same day, 1 November 2007, by a nurse practitioner indicated, “SM presents with 
cc of increasing intensity of anxiety, mood irritability and vivid nightmares related to 
combat experiences. SM reports difficulty functioning when alone, feeling unable to 
relax. SM reports sleep has been poor – related poor sleep to persistent nightmares in 
which SM states the sights and smells in dream seem very real and disturbing. SM 
redeployed for second tour in Iraq in…2007.” The nurse practitioner diagnosed “Anxiety 
Disorder NOS, Rule Out PTSD.” 

   f.	A behavioral health note, dated 21 November 2007, by an LCSW reported, “PT 
with cc of increased nightmares of Iraq, restless sleep, thinking about Iraq daily, reading 
about Military Intelligence, POW experiences, lack of sexual and physical drive with 
spouse. PT disclosed and shared his experiences while with the transition team 
missions in Iraq.” 

  g.	A final clinical note by the LCSW, dated 28 November 2007, indicated “PT with 
cc of stress due to move to Southern California, nightmares with less intensity in the 
past 2 weeks, some concern about his transition into civilian life, excitement to start a 
new life in CA. PT states he will continue MH treatment as needed as he feels there 
are several issues which he would like to explore in therapy…Case will be closed 
today. PT will d/c from the Army.”   

  h.	The VA electronic medical record, the JLV, indicated a 100% service connected 
disability with PTSD 100%, Shoulder Prosthesis 50%, Flat Foot Condition 50%, 
Traumatic Brain Disease 40% and Migraine Headaches 30%. There were only three 
behavioral health related notes in the VA records, all under the Consult Encounters 
section. A Community Care – Behavioral Health note, dated 10 September 2020, 
indicated, “PT with a long hx of depression/PTSD and chronic suicidal ideas. During 
the last few years, the patient underwent treatment with multiple anti-depressants and 
combination of anti-depressant with other meds (Li atypical anti-psychotic) without 
dramatic improvement.” The Problem List identified, “Male Erectile Dysfunction” 
(7 October 2020), “Other Recurrent Depressive Disorder” (07 March 2016), “PTSD 
Chronic” (17 January 2016), “Cognitive Disorder” (17 December 2009), “Depressive 
Disorder NOS” (17 September 2009), “PTSD” (12 February 2008) and “Anxiety NOS” 
(13 December 2007).

  i.	IPERMS contained an Officer Evaluation Report (OER), covering the period 
14 June 2007 - 1 December 2007. The OER indicated that he served as the “Executive 
Officer for the largest combat Military Police Brigade in the Army.” His Rater, the 
Deputy Brigade Commander, noted, “[Applicant] is clearly in the top two very best 
Captains I have observed in my 22 years of service…Place him in command of a 
tactical MP Company immediately, send to ILE and select…to Major. He is a future 
battalion commander.” His Officer Record Brief, dated 09 May 2008, indicated his 
PULHES were all 1s indicative of no profiles.
   j.	Review of available military documents indicates that the applicant received 
Behavioral Health diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified and a RULE 
OUT for PTSD while on active duty. 

  k.	The applicant did not have a history of a permanent profile (S-3) or a history of 
recurrent or extended hospitalizations.  There is a lack of evidence that the 
psychological difficulties for which the applicant is requesting disability retirement 
interfered with his job performance. It is evident in the applicant’s medical record that 
he met military medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501.

l.  Review of the applicant’s military records indicate the following:

     (1)	There were some AHLTA behavioral health notes in which the applicant 
identified past traumatic experiences while in Iraq. Reported symptoms from different 
providers noted hypervigilance, startle response, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, 
extreme anxiety and fearfulness, severe sleep problems, avoidant behavior, social 
withdrawal, depression and marital difficulties. Yet, despite all these indicators of 
PTSD, the behavioral health providers maintained the diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder 
NOS by and large, but for one nurse practitioner who indicated a Rule Out for PTSD.      

      (2)	The AHLTA records do not indicate he went through an MEB process. The 
behavioral health notes that were reviewed did not indicate any consideration of referral 
for a MEB related evaluation. Given his report of PTSD related symptoms in some of his 
behavioral health sessions, there should have been a referral to a psychologist and 
psychiatrist at Tripler Army Medical Center for further evaluation and psychological 
testing.      
     
(3)	The clinical record does indicate that he was assessed for impact from prior 
head injuries. The primary outcome of these assessments was the presence of rather 
chronic headaches.   

   m.  Review of the VA electronic medical record (JLV) indicates that the applicant is 
rated with a 100% service connected disability with PTSD 100%, Shoulder Prosthesis 
50%, Flat Foot Condition 50%, Traumatic Brain Disease 40% and Migraine Headaches 
30%.  

(1)	It is important to understand that the VA findings of service connection do 
not automatically result in a military medical retirement. The VA operates under different 
rules, laws and regulations when assigning disability percentages than the Department 
of Defense (DOD). In essence, the VA will compensate for all disabilities felt to be 
unsuiting. The Department of Defense, however, does not compensate for unsuiting 
conditions. It only compensates for unfitting conditions. Based on the available military 
records, there is insufficient indication that the applicant suffered from an unfitting 
psychiatric condition as indicated by the fact that his PTSD related symptoms and 
chronic headaches did not lead to identified functional limitations with his work 
performance while on active duty. This was further corroborated by the content of his 
OER (Jun – Dec 2007) and ORB (May 2008). The medical records as a whole 
demonstrate that he met military medical retention standards. 
     
(2)	It is also important to note that the Department of Defense does not 
compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications 
of conditions that were incurred during active military service. This is a role reserved for 
the VA. 

n.  In conclusion, the following determinations are made. 

(1)	The applicant’s military records do not support the existence of boardable 
PTSD/TBI at the time of discharge while in the Army, particularly due to the lack of 
PTSD specific evaluations prior to his discharge.  

     		(2) The applicant’s military records indicate that the applicant did meet medical 
retention standards IAW AR 40-501. 

(3) Applicant’s medical conditions DO not warrant separation through medical 
channels. 

(4) The applicant’s medical conditions regarding behavioral health symptoms, 
diagnoses and adverse impact on him WERE NOT duly considered during medical 
separation processing with particular emphasis on the symptoms he reported with 
behavioral health providers. 

o.  It is therefore the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that a referral of the 
applicant’s record to IDES for consideration of military medical retirement for PTSD/TBI 
is not warranted at this time.  

6.   By regulation (AR 15-185), an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the 
ABCMR.  Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of 
the ABCMR.  

7.  By regulation (AR 635-5), the DD Form 214 is a summary of the Soldier's most 
recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of all current 
active, prior active, and prior inactive duty service at the time of release from active 
duty, retirement, or discharge.  The information entered thereon reflects the conditions 
as they existed at the time of separation.  Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) is 
based on regulatory or other authority and can be checked against the cross reference 
in AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes).
8.  By regulation (AR 40-501), medical evaluation of certain enlisted military 
occupational specialties and officer duty assignments in terms of medical conditions and 
physical defects which are causes for rejection or medical unfitness for these 
specialized duties.  If the profile is permanent the profiling officer must assess if the 
Soldier meets retention standards.  Those Soldiers on active duty who do not meet 
retention standards must be referred to a medical evaluation board.  

9.  By regulation (AR 635-40), the mere presence of a medical impairment does not in 
and of itself justify a finding of unfitness.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the 
nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the 
Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, 
rank, or rating.  A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents 
reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or 
rating.

10.  By law, 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.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, 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.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found relief 
is not warranted.  The Board further found the available evidence is sufficient to fully 
and fairly consider this case without a personal appearance by the applicant.

2.  The Board concurred with the conclusion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that the 
available records contain insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the applicant 
should have been referred for evaluation for discharge or retirement due to disability 
prior to his discharge from the Regular Army in 2008.  Based on a preponderance of 
evidence, the Board determined the applicant's discharge for "miscellaneous/general 
reasons" was not in error or unjust.  




BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:XX	XX	:XX	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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		  
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.


REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, United States 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 ABCMR to excuse an applicant's 
failure to timely file within the 3 year statute of limitations if the Army Board for 
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice 
to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for 
correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  
The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of 
administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct.  

   a.  The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the 
evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent 
evidence submitted with the application.  The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  

   b.  The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence 
or opinions.  Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right 
to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal 
hearing whenever justice requires.

3.  Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) states the DD Form 
214 is a summary of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It 
provides a brief, clear-cut record of all current active, prior active, and prior inactive duty 
service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.  The 
information entered thereon reflects the conditions as they existed at the time of 
separation.  Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) is based on regulatory or other 
authority and can be checked against the cross reference in AR 635-5-1 (Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) Codes).

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designation Codes) currently in 
effect, provides separation program designator (SPD) codes are three-character 
alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active 
duty. The narrative reason for the separation will be entered in block 28 of the DD Form 
214 exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of the regulation.  Table 2-2 lists for SPD code 
FND, the narrative reason as, “Miscellaneous/General Reasons” in accordance with 
AR 600-8-24, paragraph 3-5.

5.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), in effect at the time, 
provided medical fitness standards of sufficient detail to ensure uniformity in medical 
evaluation of certain enlisted military occupational specialties and officer duty 
assignments in terms of medical conditions and physical defects which are causes for 
rejection or medical unfitness for these specialized duties.  Chapter 3 (Medical Fitness 
Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement), states the various 
medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further 
military service.  Soldiers with conditions listed in this chapter will be evaluated by a 
medical board and will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB).  

6.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or 
Separation), prescribes policy and implements the requirements of chapter 61 
(Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability) of Title 10, U.S. Code (USC).  The 
regulation states:

     a.  The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a 
finding of unfitness.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of 
physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may 
reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  
A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable 
performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating.

     b.  Based upon the requirements of section 1203 of chapter 61, Title 10, USC, states 
Soldiers, not otherwise eligible for military retirement, with a disability not the result of 
intentional misconduct or willful neglect, and with less than a 30 percent disability rating, 
will receive severance pay.

7.  Title 38, USC, sections 1110 and 1131, permits 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.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, 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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180011083


14

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1