Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9005938
Original file (9005938.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records to show a higher percent of disability than the zero percent he received at the time of his separation.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, at the time of separation he received zero percent disability because it was stated he had improved, but, they were wrong because his condition has worsened and he has suffered over the last
11 years.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 23 October 1991. (COPY ATTACHED).

In support of his application the applicant submits consultations and hospital records from his admissions to the Mount Sinai Medical Center in 1997 regarding esophageal replacement. He also submits letters from four of his doctors reflecting his current condition and consultations from the Holmes Regional Medical Center and from the VA.

An advisory opinion was obtained (COPY ATTACHED)from the Department of the Army Military Review Boards Agency’s (DARBA), medical advisor who opined that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s contention and that at time of separation the applicant was properly diagnosed and rated for his condition.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1. The applicant's disability was properly rated in accordance with the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. His separation with severance pay was in compliance with law and regulation.

2. The applicant's contentions do not demonstrate error or injustice in the disability rating assigned by the Army, nor error or injustice in the disposition of his case by his separation from the service.

3..The foregoing are in consonance with the DARBA medical advisor’s opinion.

4. The VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's employability. Accordingly, it is not unusual for the two agencies of the Government, operating under different policies, to arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment. Furthermore, 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.

5. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

 BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION

                  Loren G. Harrell
                  Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054438C070420

    Original file (2001054438C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel also states that the applicant has submitted records from the DVA showing that he was granted service connection for depression, headaches, and joint pain with a combined rating of 40 percent, and with the effective date being the date following his discharge from service. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded: The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068241C070402

    Original file (2002068241C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The VA, however, is not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8709019

    Original file (8709019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS : In effect, reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge, changing the reason for discharge or granting a medical discharge. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year time limit. The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306756

    Original file (9306756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his application the applicant submits a 1996 disability rating increase by the VA, copies of medical records of treatments subsequent to the Board’s 1995 decision and a personal statement. An advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from Army Review Board Agency’s, medical advisor that opined that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s contention and that at time of separation the applicant was properly diagnosed and rated for his condition. Although the rating...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510421C070209

    Original file (9510421C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    A 14 July 1993 PEB determined that the applicant had a major depression requiring medication and psychotherapy with mild impairment of social and industrial adaptability (recommended disability percentage of 10 percent), and PTSD manifested by flashbacks, anxiety including hyperventilation syndrome, and phobic reaction rated as mild (recommended disability percentage of 10 percent). Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506207C070209

    Original file (9506207C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 5 February 1997 (COPY ATTACHED). The law and regulations cited in the Board’s prior consideration of the applicant’s case make it clear that to be separated for physical disability a soldier must be physically unable to perform duty and that the presence of a medical condition...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002609

    Original file (20090002609.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also states he believes an injustice occurred for the following reasons: (1) He was denied presumption under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 3-2, during all PEB proceedings; (2) All medical evidence was not considered; (3) Medical evidence verifying severe disability was actively disallowed by the commander of the PEB; (4) medical retirement/concurrent retirement and disability pay were denied although his...

  • 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608238C070209

    Original file (9608238C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 April 1994 a formal physical evaluation board (PEB) determined that the applicant had seizure disorder, generalized and idiopathic, controlled by medication, with seizures reported in April 1993 (definite) and in May 1993 (probable). Army Regulation 635-40, appendix B, Army Application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, paragraph B-3f, provides that conditions which do not render a soldier unfit for military service will not be considered in determining the compensable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605689C070209

    Original file (9605689C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant entered the Army on 23 September 1981 and served on continuous active duty until his discharge in 1993. The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, the applicant's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or...