APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect a medical retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he should not been separated while being treated for a service connected disability..
COUNSEL CONTENDS: No contentions were submitted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 31 May 1941. On 21 September 1985, the applicant entered active duty as a reserve commissioned officer of the Army, in the rank of Major (O-4) with 4 years and 20 days of prior active service and 13 years, 7 months and 11 days of prior inactive service. The highest grade he achieved was pay grade O-5.
Between February 1985 and February 1994, the applicant was seen on many occasions by a Orthopedic doctor for recurring discomfort and pain in both knees. He was diagnosed as having chondromalacia patella, bilateral. There is no medical evidence that the applicant was referred to appear before a medical evaluation board.
On 30 June 1994, the applicant was honorably released from active duty, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, paragraph 3-49G, in pay grade O-5, the narrative reason for separation was Reduction in Force. He served 26 years, 5 months and 10 days of creditable active and inactive service. He was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon.
On 1 July 1994, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded the applicant a 30 percent service connected disability rating.
A medical consultant for the Board, in a comment (COPY ATTACHED) to this Board, opined that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of separation and recommended that his records not be corrected on a medical basis.
Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.
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 applicants medical record indicates that he did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.
4. The foregoing is supported by the opinion of the OTSG.
5. An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation. The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty. Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service-connected. Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. The Army must find unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated.
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 | CY2014 | 20140015617
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show in: * item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) lieutenant colonel (LTC) instead of major (MAJ) * item 4b (Pay Grade) O-5 instead of O-4 * item 12b (Separation Date this Period) 18 March 1996 instead of 17 April 1991 * item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) 29 June 1995 instead of 29 June 1989 * item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003412
The applicant states that due to the severity of the horrific crime she witnessed on a military installation while serving in the Regular Army (RA) from April 1982 to March 1989, she should receive a medical discharge. However, nowhere in her records does it show: * a permanent physical profile * A DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) * a diagnosis of a disabling condition that failed retention standards and rendered her unable to perform the duties required of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506091C070209
The applicants Officers Evaluation Report (OER), dated 24 October 1991, indicated that the applicant could not meet the rigorous physical demands of todays Army because of his current physical impairment. On 13 December 1991, the United States Army Physical Evaluation Agency (USAPDA), after careful review, reaffirmed the formal PEB findings and recommendations. The USAPDA, in a comment (COPY ATTACHED) to this Board, opined that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000265C070208
The applicant requests physical disability retirement with a 100 percent disability rating. In his 19 February 2004 letter to the Army Chief of Staff the applicant states that he should be granted a 100 percent service connected disability rating effective 1 June 1994, the date he was released from active duty. His service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001131
The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: Active Duty Orders, dated 27 September 1994; United States Army Medical Department Activity (AMEDDAC), Fort McClellan, Alabama, Letter, dated 18 January 1995; VA Rating Decision, dated 2 November 2001; and Military Medical Treatment Records during the period 1994-1995. The evidence of record in this case shows that the applicant appears to have suffered an injury in November 1994, and that he continued to perform...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004054
Her records contain Orders A-12-002360, dated 22 December 1999, issued by the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, which shows she was ordered to report for active duty not later than 3 January 2000, for a period of 175 days. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062372C070421
The applicant applied to the Board to correct his records to show he was retired by reason of a physical disability. The VA Rating Decision dated 9 June 1998 shows the evidence established that the applicant’s Meniere’s syndrome was well controlled and stable on medication prior to 20 August 1993. Once a soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098272C070212
If his condition was severe enough for the VA to grant him a 30 percent disability rating, then he should have received a medical discharge from the Army. On 30 August 2000 the VA notified the applicant that his optic neuritis to his left eye was service connected with a 30 percent disability rating. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019295
The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was medically retired instead of separated with a 20-percent disability and entitlement to severance pay. The evidence of record shows the applicant served in the NJARNG. Although his physical evaluation board proceedings are not available for review, by law, a disability rating of less than 30 percent entitles the member to severance pay while a disability rating of 30 percent or more entitles the member to medical retirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007224
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 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 his or her duties and assign an appropriate...