APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, an increase in his disability rating.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he believes that his record is in error or unjust because the Veterans Administration (VA) awarded him 30 percent service connected disability. He therefore determined that the military retirement board did not have adequate medical information to make a proper medical evaluation.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 18 December 1962. He completed 16 years of formal education. On 17 April 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years in pay grade E-2. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B10 (Medical Specialist). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
The applicants medical record shows that in December 1991, the applicant sustained a severe injury to his right eye after being attacked by two individuals who were involved in a fight. The applicant sustained a blow-out fracture of the right orbital floor, and one week following the injury he was operated on for repair and reduction of the blow-out fracture with entrapment of the right orbital floor.
On 26 August 1992, the applicant was given a permanent physical profile for continued pain and intermittent double vision.
On 28 August 1992, the applicant appeared before a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). He was diagnosed as having a Postoperative repair of the infraorbital floor blow-out fracture of the right eye. The MEB referred the applicant to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant concurred with the MEBs findings and recommendation.
On 16 October 1992, the PEB found the applicant physically unfit for duty and recommended a disability rating of 10 percent and separation with severance pay. On
16 November 1992, the applicant concurred with the PEBs findings and recommendation.
On 15 June 1993, the applicant was honorably discharged in pay grade E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-40, paragraph 4-24b, for physical disability with severance pay. He received a 10 percent disability rating with severance pay in the amount of $4,004.40. He completed
2 years, 1 month and 29 days of creditable active service. He was awarded the Army Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon.
On 15 August 1994, the Veterans Administration, awarded the applicant a combined service connected disability rating of 30 percent for eyesight (diplopia); patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee and for headaches.
On 31 October 1995, the applicant appealed to this Board for correction of his military records.
In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Physical Disability Agency. It contains no information, advice or recommendation which would constitute a basis for granting the relief requested.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.
Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent.
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 applicants 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.
3. The foregoing conclusions are support by the advisory opinion furnished by the USAPDA.
4. The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice in the Army rating. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulation, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit. Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.
5. Therefore, 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
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01139
Traumatic Optic Neuropathy Condition : The PEB rated the traumatic optic neuropathy with visual limitation of 20/40,limitation of up gaze in the right eye, right orbital fracture, hypertropia and exotropia and status post multiple skull fractures, Including a right orbit and bi-basilar skull fracture as Category II conditions (“Conditions that contribute to the unfitting condition”). Right Wrist Fracture Condition : T he PEB determined that the right wrist fracture condition was related to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9505910C070209
On 21 January 1992 he was given a physical profile of 1 1 3 1 1 1 for his right ankle fracture. The PEB determined that the applicant was physically unfit to perform the duties in his rank as an infantryman and recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army with a combined disability rating of 20 percent. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004864C070208
The applicant requests, through his Senator's office, that his records be corrected to show he was retired by reason of physical disability after completing 20 years of creditable active service. The 1992 TDRL periodic physical examination recommended the applicant be removed from the TDRL and permanently retired. U. S. Total Army Personnel Command Orders D14-7 dated 25 January 1993 removed him from the TDRL effective 15 February 1993 and permanently retired him with a disability rating of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008704C070208
The applicant provides VA disability rating decision documents in support of her application. The formal hearing upheld the original PEB findings and again rated the applicant at 20 percent based on the medical evidence and testimony presented. The applicant’s request for an increase to the disability rating assigned by the PEB and medical retirement, along with the supporting evidence she provided were carefully considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016435
In 2001, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) diagnosed him with: * chronic bilateral ankle pain/sinus tarsi pain, idiopathic * right knee pain, chondromalacia, left knee post-op scarring/inflammation * right elbow epicondylitis * DeQuervains disease, right wrist * scrotal pain, unclear etiology 4. Rated for pain in accordance with U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency pain policy. However, the evidence shows the PEB found him physically unfit due to ankle, knee, and scrotal pain.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019918
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. The formal PEB recommended a combined rating of 10 percent and that the applicant be separated with severance pay. However, the DVA letter provided by the applicant shows he was he was granted service connected disability compensation for three conditions (left wrist, right knee, and tinnitus).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011199
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent. Noted is the fact that the informal PEB initially recommended that he be awarded a 10 percent disability for his unfitting condition; however, after reviewing the medical addendum provided by his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001651C070205
There is no evidence and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows the PEB did not consider the applicant's mental condition at the time of their evaluation. Notwithstanding the new evidence and argument submitted by the applicant, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant's mental condition was evaluated and considered in the PEB's decision. Evidence further confirms the applicant was discharged accordingly showing retirement by reason of physical disability.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005550
The applicant states his DD Form 214 should indicate retirement based on a medical discharge which was processed through a medical evaluation board (MEB). 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 must find that a Soldier is...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00348
Nevertheless, given the CI’s history of starting college prior to separation, employment after separation, and normal performance on tests of “intellectual abilities, memory, executive control, language, and visual-spatial functioning,” the Board agreed that the CI’s level of functioning at separation best fit the VASRD §4.130 10% criteria, “occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only...