APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he be placed on the Disable Retired List because the VA awarded him a combined service connected disability rating of 30 percent.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 27 March 1948. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 18 January 1966, he enlisted into the Regular Army. On 17 January 1967, he was honorably discharged after serving 1 year of active military service. On 18 January 1967, he immediately reenlisted for 3 years.
On 28 October 1968, while assigned to a unit in Vietnam, the applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident, with laceration of the left arm, including the radial nerve, and a penetrating wound of the left knee. The applicant was discharged to duty on 25 February 1969, with a temporary U-3 profile for 90 days. There is no evidence in the applicants military record which indicates that he was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board.
On 28 July 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from
29 September 1971 to 17 July 1972. However, particulars are missing from his file.
On 1 August 1972, a physical evaluation found the applicant physically fit for retention.
On 16 August 1972, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-5 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge under honorable conditions. He had completed 6 years,
6 months and 27 days of creditable active service and 292 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a general discharge.
On 17 August 1972, a VA Rating Decision awarded the applicant a combined service connected disability rating of 30 percent for residuals of lacerations of the left arm including the radial nerve and attenuation with chipped fracture left patella.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition that 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.
On 14 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicants general discharge to an honorable discharge.
On 10 December 1996, a medical consultant for the Board, in comment (COPY ATTACHED) to this Board, opined that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of separation and recommended that the records not be corrected on a medical basis.
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. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
2. The medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of his separation. He has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary.
3. The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency. It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Department of the Army purposes.
4. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. The foregoing, is supported by a medical consultant for this Board.
6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011889
Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system 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 office, grade, rank, or rating. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform their duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before they can be medically retired or separated 22. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508063C070209
The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of his separation. Records provided by the VA indicate that the applicant has been awarded compensation for medical conditions which that agency has determined to be related to military service.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00584
The MEB and VA exams both documented full range of motion, while the hand surgeon noted palmar flexion limited to 65 degrees. Right Foot Condition. The PEB coding for foot injury allows a moderate rating that more accurately reflects the degree of painful motion, painful use and painful scar comprising the CI’s foot condition.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00677
The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6040.44, however, resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness determinations and rating decisions for disability at the time of separation and is limited to conditions adjudicated by the PEB as either unfitting or not unfitting. At the VA Compensation and Pension exam performed a month prior to separation, the CI reported decreased sensation, continued weakness, and poor range‐of‐motion of the left thumb and hand. The VA rated the left thumb...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006637
The applicant requests that his disability rating be corrected from 40 to 60 percent. 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 retirement, may be sufficient to qualify him for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00642
The medical basis for the separation was Radial and Ulnar Nerve Palsy of the Right Upper Extremity (right forearm nerve damage-RUE), Right Shoulder Posterior Subluxation (shoulder dislocation), and Left Open Thumb Metacarpal Fracture. The informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the Radial and Ulnar Nerve Palsy of the RUE as unfitting rated 20%, Right Shoulder Posterior Subluxation as unfitting rated 0%, and Left open Thumb Metacarpal Fracture as unfitting rated 0%; with...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00574
A left upper extremity radial nerve palsy (resolving) condition was identified by the MEB and also forwarded for consideration by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The Board noted the more proximate timing of the VA C&P exam and the disability rating importance of the examiner’s finding of “Range of motion of the left shoulder is limited by pain, fatigue and weakness.” However, the exam did not specify that arm motion was limited by any specific value, or functionally limited to the “at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012847
The applicant requests that his disability rating be increased from 60 percent to 70 percent. The 4 February 2005 PEB rated the applicant's amputation and associated symptoms at 60 percent and his PTSD at 10 percent and found him unfit at a combined rating of 60 percent. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by rating his left arm condition at 20 percent, lumbosacral strain and chronic neck pain at 10 percent...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00640
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “I was far more disabled than the military medical examiner thought and I was not examined thoroughly enough. The examiner also noted the CI continued to minimize both his PTSD and alcohol abuse. He rated his pain as an 8.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017372
The applicant requests correction of her records to show an increase in her physical disability rating to at least 30 percent and a medical disability retirement. The PEB found her physically unfit and recommended a 10-percent disability rating and separation with severance pay. The PEB Proceedings, dated 1 May 1996, show her unfitting diagnosed conditions were rated under VASRD 5003 for hip pain.