IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  25 February 2021

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20200002929


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, correction of his records to show he was 
discharged due to a physical disability incurred while serving on active duty.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) discharge orders 

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(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:

	a.  Prior to his discharge from the USAR in 2005, he had written a letter to his 
unit requesting to be allowed to leave the Army on health grounds (due to lower back 
pain).  He wrote the letter to his unit around 2004-2005 after he came back from a one-
year active duty tour in 2004.  Thereafter, he was issued a separation order in 2005.

	b.  In 2006, he had spinal surgery because of the lower back pain he developed 
after his return from active duty.  After he applied for disability to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) around June 2019, his request was denied and one of the 
reasons that was cited for the denial was that his separation order did not state that he 
was discharged due to his lower back medical condition.  That is why he is requesting 
that his USAR separation order be corrected to reflect the actual reason for his 
separation.  

	c.  He requested in writing to be allowed to leave the Army because of the 
seriousness of his health condition (lower back pain), which made it difficult for him to 
continue to actively discharge his duties as a Soldier.  Therefore, one would have 
thought that the reason for the separation would have been clearly stated on his 
discharge order.  All documents in support of his claim that could be relevant to his 
records correction can be obtained from the VA.  

3.  Following enlisted service in the Army National Guard and in the USAR, the 
applicant was appointed a Reserve commissioned officer on 12 February 2004.  He was 
assigned to the 344th Combat Support Hospital, Fort Totten, NY, effective 12 February 
2004.

4.  Orders issued by Headquarters, 77th U.S. Army Regional Readiness Command on 
13 December 2005, directed the applicant's honorable discharge from the USAR 
effective 13 December 2005.  The orders do not show the reason for his discharge from 
the USAR.  

5.  There is no evidence in the applicant's available records showing he was unable to 
perform his military duties due to a medical disability. 

6.  On 2 November 2020, the Headquarters, USAR Command (USARC), Fort Bragg, 
NC, Line of Duty (LOD) Program Manager, provided an advisory opinion pertaining to 
the applicant's discharge from the USAR.  It states:

	a.  Lower back pain (mild or severe) is not a medical diagnosis.  It is a symptom 
of a medical condition.  In this case, there is no documented diagnosis that can be
attributed to military service that would have constituted a medical boarding process for 
the applicant.

	b.  The applicant did not go through the medical board process.  He has no 
documented LOD or service-related visits in either AHLTA (military electronic health 
record) or the VA health system for back pain prior to his discharge from military 
service.

	c.  The applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 13 December 
2005.  According to his statement, he resigned his commission due to his inability to 
"continue to actively discharge [his] duties as a Soldier."  Based on the documentation 
provided and a review of the applicant's medical record, he was given the appropriate
military discharge.

7.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 2 November 2020 and 
given the opportunity to submit comments.  He did not respond.  

8.  Based on the applicant’s condition, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) 
medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members.  See ?MEDICAL 
REVIEW? section.  

MEDICAL REVIEW:  

1.  The ARBA Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed 
included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the 
military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the 
electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History 
and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel 
Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS).  The ARBA Medical Advisor made 
the following findings and recommendations:  
2.  The applicant applied to the ABCMR requesting in essence a referral to the Disability 
Evaluation System (DES).  He states:
“I personally requested in writing to be allowed to leave the army because of the 
seriousness of my health condition (lower back pains) which made it difficult for 
me to continue to actively discharge my duties as a soldier. Therefore, one would 
have thought that the reason for the separation would have been clearly stated 
on my Discharge Order.”
3.  The Record of Proceedings and the 20 November 2020 advisory opinion from the 
USAR detail the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case.  The 
applicant’s Report of Separation and Record of Service (NGB Form 22) shows the 
applicant entered the Army National Guard on 17 April 1997 and was honorably 
discharged on 20 April 2000.   He then entered the USAR on 12 February 2004.  Orders 
show the former USAR officer was honorably discharged on 13 December 2005.
4.  There was no medical documentation submitted with the application and there are 
no encounters in AHLTA.  In JLV, there are no lumbar conditions listed on his medical 
problem list and no encounters for lumbar related conditions.  There are no documents 
in MEDCHART.  There was no separation packet submitted with the application and it is 
not in iPERMS.
5.  There is no evidence the applicant had any medical condition which would have 
failed the medical retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical 
Fitness) prior to his voluntary discharge.  Thus, there was no cause for referral to the 
Disability Evaluation System.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that any medical 
condition prevented the applicant from being able to reasonably perform the duties of 
his office, grade, rank, or rating prior to his discharge.
6.  Based on the information currently available, it is the opinion of the Agency Medical 
Advisor that referral of his case to the Disability Evaluation System is not warranted.  

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found relief 
is not warranted.

2.  The Board concurred with the conclusions of the USARC advisory official and the 
ARBA Medical Advisor that the applicant's records do not support a conclusion that he 
should have been referred for disability evaluation prior to his discharge.  Based on a 
preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the applicant's discharge 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, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would 
be in the interest of justice to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that for an 
individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he or she must be unable to 
perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating.  Performance of duty 
despite impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness.

3.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Disability Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or 
Separation) establishes the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth 
policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is 
unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, 
grade, rank, or rating.  It provides that a Medical evaluation Board is convened to 
document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by 
the Soldier's status.  A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for 
retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501.  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 a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

	a.  Paragraph 3-1 provides that the mere presence of 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 member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her 
office, rank, grade, or rating.

	b.  Paragraph 3-2 provides that when a member is being processed for separation 
for reasons other than physical disability (e.g., retirement, resignation, reduction inforce, 
relief from active duty, administrative separation, discharge, etc.), his or her continued 
performance of duty (until he or she is referred to the PDES for evaluation for 
separation for reasons indicated above) creates a presumption that the member is fit for 
duty.

4.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, 
and administrative instructions regarding an applicant’s request for the correction of 
a military record.  The regulation states in:

	a.  Paragraph 2-2, the ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record.  It is not 
an investigative body.

	b.  Paragraph 2-9, the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20200002929


5

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1