Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306756
Original file (9306756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous application to be reinstated on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), his Army disability rating increased to 30 percent and then removed from the TDRL with a permanent disability retirement in lieu of severance pay.

APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that as a result of recent rating changes by the VA and additional medical documents, his medical condition was not properly evaluated resulting in an Army disability rating below what he should have received. He also states he cannot obtain gainful employment with his condition.

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 1 March 1995. (COPY ATTACHED).

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. He contends in the statement that the latest rating increase by the VA from zero to twenty percent is evidence he should have remained on TDRL at the initial level of 30 percent.

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.

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 rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army rating. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability rating as it sees fit. Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.

2. Although the rating systems used by both the Army and the VA, is the Veterans Administration Schedule for rating Disabilities (VASARD), not all of the general policy provisions set forth in the VASARD apply to the Army. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected impairment, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.

3. 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.

4. 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 :

GRANT

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                                                      Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012323

    Original file (20090012323.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It 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. By action of the ABCMR, the applicant was placed on the TDRL and temporarily retired under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 4-24b(2) and Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1552 for his disabilities of (1) traumatic arthritis, 20 percent disabling, (2) chronic...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004652

    Original file (20090004652.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his military records be changed to show he was placed on the Retired List for physical unfitness rated 100 percent disabled. On 14 February 2005, the applicant's case was considered by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) while he was on the TDRL. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089279C070403

    Original file (2003089279C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board. Although documents associated with the applicant’s 1991 Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) were not available to the Board, the separation document provided by the applicant in support of her request indicates that she was honorably discharged on 15 October 1991 by reason of physical disability. He concluded by stating that the “degree of stress associated with her current employment and in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000647

    Original file (20090000647.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In 2006, the VA rated his disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, at 100-percent disabling. Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant's discharge should be changed from medically separated with severance pay to retirement with permanent disability. The fact that the VA increased his disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder from 50 percent to 100 percent 5 years after the applicant was discharged from the TDRL does not show that his rating by the Army was in error.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018505

    Original file (20080018505.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    As such, the PEB did not rate those conditions. Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 7-2, provides that an individual may be placed on the TDRL (for the maximum period of 5 years which is allowed by Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1210) when it is determined that the individual’s physical disability is not stable and he or she may recover and be fit for duty, or the individual’s disability is not stable and the degree of severity may change within the next 5 years so as to change the disability...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011085C070208

    Original file (20040011085C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 civilian employability. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009020

    Original file (20090009020.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he was medically separated with severance pay. While the applicant requests an increase in his military disability rating based on information from the VA because his disabilities have worsened, he has provided no evidence to show the 1998 PEB's findings were incorrect. Subsequent VA ratings, and the fact that conditions may have worsened after separation, are not evidence of PEB error.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014695

    Original file (20090014695.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record shows that the applicant was diagnosed with "moderately severe" atrophy of upper and lower leg muscles with a 40 percent disability rating and an overall disability rating of 50 percent. The 40 percent disability rating he received is consistent with the medical evidence, the formal PEB findings, and the VASRD. Additionally, the applicant offers the fact that he was awarded a 60 percent disability percentage rating from the VA as proof that he should have received...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009756

    Original file (20080009756.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that after her discharge the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) increased her disability rating to 80 percent and granted her individual unemployability status. The applicant believes that since the VA has awarded her a higher disability rating than what she was given by the Army, her rating by the Army is in error. __________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608223C070209

    Original file (9608223C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES: That she should have been rated for all her medical conditions, not just her headaches. The PEB, after finding her fit for duty twice, referred her to a formal PEB which found her unfit for duty due to her vascular and tension headaches and recommended that she be discharged with severance pay, rated 10 percent disabled. The applicant’s rating by the VA does not indicate that her rating by the Army is in error.