APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his previous request to increase his Army disability rating.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the Army never took action to test him for damage sustained by his head injury prior to his discharge and he has had to carry a pad around with him in order to remember things.
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 12 February 1997 (COPY ATTACHED).
In support of his application the applicant submits a nine page neuropsychological evaluation dated 27 January 1998 and examination reports from two different VA doctors dated 24 and 17 February 1997, respectively. These documents describe the results of the applicants short and long term memory. and conclude as a diagnoses: Dementia due to head trauma. He contends that the VA decision and diagnosis should be used as evidence to increase his Army disability.
The Board requested information from the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Office (PEBLO) at Fort Campbell as to why the applicant was not considered for retention in the Army for the 3 months and 9 days he needed in order to make 20 creditable years for retirement at age 60. The records indicate that on 22 September 1993 the applicant was counseled by the PEBLO regarding his option to request continuance on active duty. The applicant stated that he did not want to continue on active duty to complete 20 years creditable service.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The law and regulations cited in the Boards prior consideration of the applicants case make it clear that conditions which do not render a soldier unfit for military service will not be considered in determining the compensation disability rating unless the conditions contribute to the finding of unfitness.
2. Furthermore, the MOC points out that the Military and VA systems are essentially different.
3. 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 ratings as it sees fit. Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.
4. 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.
5. 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074935C070403
• Probative value of MEB, physical examinations and reports in a disability determination by the PEB and the ABCMR. The MOC, on page 6, notes that the ARBA medical advisor provided an AO; however, neither the AO nor the ABCMR MOC, discuss the overall effect of all, or some, of his ailments on his ability to perform his duties; pain as an unfitting condition; his VA and Army medical records; the postretirement report of examinations in the appeal that conflicted with Army MEB diagnoses, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012843
The applicant states that the evaluations of his physical and mental condition during the medical evaluation board (MEBD) and the physical evaluation board (PEB) were not consistent with DOD directives and failed to properly determine the extent of his service-connected conditions. The evidence of record shows an MEBD was conducted as well as a PEB. The evidence of record further shows that the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination for compensation and pension from the VA shortly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506207C070209
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 Boards prior consideration of the applicants 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 | CY2012 | 20120009642
The applicant requests, in effect, that a brain injury/mental health condition be added to his unfitting condition and his disability rating be increased to at least 30 percent (a medical retirement). His condition should have been rated as an unfitting condition. His disability was diagnosed as 100 percent disabling by the VA within 1 year of separation from the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057941C070420
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021545
The applicant provides copies of his: * Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings * Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings * VA rating decision CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence of record shows the PEB considered the applicant's entire case file, including the LOD finding and his MEB proceedings. Records show that after the applicant's PEB findings and recommendations were approved, and the PEBLO provided the applicant information about applying for VA compensation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017076
On 30 June 2014, after a thorough review of her service medical records, VA medical records, and the evidence she provided, the SRP determined there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the MH condition and therefore no disability rating could be recommended. If the VA changes the disability rating for the unfitting condition based on a portion of his or her service treatment record that was missing during the IDES process and the change to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010818
The applicant requests correction of his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings to show he was medically retired with a combined disability rating of 30 percent (%). c. Based on a review of the medical evidence of record the PEB found the applicant physically unfit, recommended a combined rating of 10%, and separation with severance pay, if otherwise qualified. The applicant contends his PEB proceedings should be corrected to show he was medically retired based on chronic right foot...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8109050d
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. The law and regulations 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 | CY2006 | 20060017621
The formal PEB's diagnosis, findings, recommendation and assigned disability rating were the same as initially made by the informal PEB's. The Deputy Commander states that the applicant was found unfit for back pain; that his shoulder condition was not found unfitting as it did not significantly hinder his duty performance and it was not listed on his physical profile; and that the MEB indicated that shoulder condition met the medical retention standards. He was considered by an MEB and...