IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 January 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220004365 APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of his military records to show he was medically retired in March 1990 vice released from active duty due to expiration of his term of service (ETS). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 30 March 1990 and 23 April 1991 * Department of Veterans Affairs summary of benefits * Orders to active duty, 31 October 1991 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-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 he is requesting orders be issued to medically retire him at pay grade E-5, with an ID card, back pay, and all the benefits associated with that. The correction should be made because it is the right thing to do, because the evidence supports the claim, and because this Board is found to correct the wrong. He provides his VA Summary of Benefits showing he is 100% service-connected by the VA, effective 1 December 2016. [Note: the applicant marked the word PTSD on his application]. 3. Review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 April 1986 for 4 years, and he held military occupational specialty 88M (Motor Transport Operator). b. He was assigned to the 416th Transportation Company, Fort Hood, TX. c. He was honorably released from active duty on 30 March 1990 in accordance with chapter 4 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) due to expiration of his term of service. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years, 11 months, and 29 days of active service. d. Following his release from active duty, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement or Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)) to complete his remaining statutory obligations. e. On 21 January 1991, he was issued orders ordering him to active duty from the IRR for 12 months. He was ordered to report to Fort Eustis on 31 January 1991. f. He entered active duty on 31 January 1991. He served in Southwest Asia from 18 February 1991 to 18 April 1991 (2 months and 1 day). He was honorably released from active duty on 23 April 1991 and transferred back to the IRR. g. On 3 May 1994, the U.S. Army Reserve Command, St. Louis published orders ordering his honorable discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve, effective 3 May 1994. 4. Soldiers are referred to the Disability Evaluation System when they are identified with medical conditions or physical defects that fall below medical retentions standards in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), Chapter 3, and have reached their medical retention determination point (MRDP). They are referred to the DES by a clinician. The medical evaluation board (MEB) determines whether Soldiers meet medical retention standards. 5. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA awards disability ratings for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. As a result, these two government agencies, operating under different policies, may arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 6. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting his records reflect he was medically retired in March 1990 versus released from active duty to expiration of his term of service (ETS). He contends making the change is the right thing to do because the evidence supports the claim. The applicant provided a VA Summary of Benefits showing he is 100 percent service-connected (SC) for PTSD. b. The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) The applicant enlisted into the Regular Army on 2 April 1986 and was honorably discharged on 30 March 1990 due to ETS. Following discharge, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group, IRR, to complete his remaining statutory obligations; 2) He was ordered to back to active duty on 21 January 1991 and served in Southwest Asia from 18 February 1991 to 18 April 1981 and was honorably released from active duty and transferred back to the IRR on 23 April 1991; 3) He was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve effective 3 May 1994. c. No military medical records were available for review. A review of JLV showed the applicant has a 100 percent SC diagnosis of PTSD associated with his deployment to Iraq, where he was exposed to constant direct and indirect fire and was exposed to dead bodies almost daily in his capacity as a fuel tanker driver, who routinely traveled the “Highway of Death”. The applicant appears to have first engaged the VA for BH- related treatment at the on 27 February 2015. During his psychiatric intake he endorsed irritability, intrusive recollections, nightmares, safety concerns, distorted cognition, anger problems, insomnia, and hypervigilance. According to the applicant he had struggled with the symptoms since early 1990, and he associated them with his deployment to Iraq. The provider diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and scheduled him for outpatient treatment via talk therapy and medication management. Records indicate the applicant received intermittent outpatient BH-care from 27 February 2015 through December 2020. d. The applicant asserts that because he has a 100 percent SC diagnosis of PTSD, he should have been medically retired in 1990 versus honorably discharged due to ETS. However, there is no evidence in the records that the applicant had a medical condition at the time of separation that rendered him unfit per 40-501 or required separation through medical channels. Additionally, given the applicant successfully continued service in the IRR, completed a second honorable tour on active duty before eventually being honorably discharged from the IRR, one can infer his PTSD symptoms did not render him unfit for continued service over the course of his career. e. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that applicant had a BH condition during his time in service, however, there is no evidence in the record that the condition warranted separation through medical channels. Kurta Questions: (1) Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant has a 100 percent SC diagnosis of PTSD (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The trauma reportedly occurred during his service in Iraq. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The applicant asserts that because he has a 100 percent SC diagnosis of PTSD, he should have been medically retired in 1990 versus honorably discharged due to ETS. However, there is no evidence in the records that the applicant had a medical condition at the time of separation that rendered him unfit per 40-501 or required separation through medical channels. Additionally, given the applicant successfully continued service in the IRR, and successfully completed a second honorable tour on active duty before eventually being honorably discharged from the IRR, one can infer his PTSD symptoms did not render him unfit for continued service over the course of his career. His honorable discharges appears proper and equitable. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board noted that the applicant served on active duty from 2 April 1986 to 30 March 1990. He was honorably separated due to expiration of his term of service. Following his release from active duty, he was assigned to the USAR. In January 1991, he entered active duty from the USAR and served in Southwest Asia from 18 February 1991 to 18 April 1991 (2 months and 1 day). He was honorably released from active duty on 23 April 1991 and transferred back to the IRR. The Board reviewed and concurred with the medical advisor’s finding that there is no evidence in the records that the applicant had a medical condition at the time of separation that rendered him unfit per 40-501 or required separation through medical channels. Additionally, given the applicant successfully continued service in the IRR, and successfully completed a second honorable tour on active duty before eventually being honorably discharged from the IRR, one can infer his PTSD symptoms did not render him unfit for continued service over the course of his career. His honorable discharge appears proper, and equitable. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant’s separation was not in error or unjust. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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 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 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 ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Chapter 3 states 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. 3. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of any VA rating does not establish an error or injustice by the Army. a. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. b. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. As a result, these two government agencies, operating under different policies, may arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220004365 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1