APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be medically retired, rated 75 percent disabled.
APPLICANT STATES: That the physician who performed the operation on his knee told him that he would receive a 75 percent disability. Based on that assurance he allowed himself to be discharged. Since his discharge he has been unable to obtain or keep employment because of his knee giving out on him. He believes that the Army may have overlooked his disability when he was discharged.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 July 1979, was awarded the military occupational specialty of Air Defense Artillery operations and intelligence assistant, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.
On 27 July 1981 the applicant went on sick call stating that he reinjured his knee the day before. He stated that he had previously injured his knee playing basketball in 1978. He was treated conservatively, being given a knee brace and given physical profile limitations.
On 16 September 1981 he underwent reconstructive surgery on his knee. During a follow-up examination conducted on 19 February 1982 the applicant reported that he was running, walking and doing other activities without his knee giving way, locking, or exhibiting any other problems. On 26 February 1982 the applicant was medically released for full duty.
On 16 June 1982 the applicant was the subject of a separation physical examination. While his knee surgery was noted during that examination, he was determined medically qualified at that time.
On 12 July 1982 he was honorably released from active duty by reason of short length of time remaining on active duty precludes reassignment. He had completed 2 years, 11 months and 26 days of his 3-year enlistment.
Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board. Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition. For example, a noncommissioned officer who receives above average evaluation reports and passes Army Physical Fitness Tests (which have been modified to comply with the individuals physical profile limitations) after the individual was diagnosed as having the medical disqualification would probably be found to be fit for duty. The fact that the individual has a medically disqualifying condition does not mandate the persons separation from the service. Fitness for duty, within the perimeters of the individuals grade and military specialty, is the determining factor in regards to separation. If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an individual will be discharged with severance pay or retired. Paragraph 4-19b states that a PEB may decide that a soldiers physical defect was EPTS, but must then determine whether the condition was aggravated by military service. If the PEB determines that a soldier has an unfitting EPTS condition which was service aggravated, the PEB must determine the degree of disability that is in excess of the degree existing at the time of entrance into the service. The method of determining the percentage of disability to be awarded in such cases is outlined in appendix B, item B-10 of this regulation.
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. 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.
Records obtained from the VA show that the applicant was awarded a 10 percent disability rating from 29 August 1983 and 30 percent from 8 April 1996.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. Although the applicant injured his knee while on active duty, all records show that his knee was surgically repaired and he was returned to full duty prior to his release from active duty.
2. As such, he did not meet the statutory criteria for a medical discharge or retirement.
3. It is noted that the applicant was discharged, for all intents and purpose, upon completion of his term of service.
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
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506854C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He enlisted in the ARNG with no prior service on 14 January 1974, entered on his initial active duty for training on 4 June 1974, was awarded the military occupational specialty of supply specialist, and was honorably released from active duty and returned to his ARNG unit on 5 December 1974. The PEB recommended that the applicant be discharged with severance pay, rated 10 percent disabled, contingent on the applicants unfitting...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021424
The evidence of record shows the applicant sustained medical conditions related to her knees and hand that rendered her physically unfit. There is no evidence the applicant was unfit because of low back pain at the time she was placed on the TDRL. There is no evidence the applicant had an unfitting medical condition related to back pain when she was placed on the TDRL or when she was removed from the TDRL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015851
The applicant also states that the Boards analysis stated that his asthma condition was not evaluated because he did not include it in his appeal. On 11 January 2005, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) referred the applicant to a PEB after diagnosing his condition as left knee pain, EPTS (existed prior to service). In addition, as the applicant noted the regulation requires the PEB to consider the overall effect of all disabilities present in a Soldier whose physical fitness is under evaluation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058998C070421
On 8 March 1984, an informal PEB found the applicant to be unfit for duty due to anterolateral rotatory instability and medial instability of the right knee with pain and swelling on exertion, rated as moderate, under the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 5257. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009467
The applicant states, in effect: * he injured his knee while in training and received surgery * he participated in physical therapy and tried to rehabilitate his knee * despite his efforts, he was referred to the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and went through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) * he was medically discharged, but the reason shown on his DD Form 214 is wrong * the PEB gave him a 0 percent disability rating and found that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000512C070208
The applicant states that his migraines should have been rated. On 23 January 2002, after reevaluating all available medical records and sworn testimony by the applicant, a formal PEB found the applicant to be unfit for duty for the same conditions as the informal PEB found; also found several other diagnoses, to include his migraines, to be not unfitting and not rated; and also recommended he be separated with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. The VA Schedule for Rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607088C070209
Army Regulation 635-40, the regulation which governs PEBs, paragraph 4-19b, states that a PEB may decide that a soldiers physical defect was EPTS, but must then determine whether the condition was aggravated by military service. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability, provides for the medical retirement and for the discharge for physical unfitness, with severance pay, of soldiers who incur a physical disability in the line of duty while serving...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511257C070209
APPLICANT STATES: He was rated for classic migraine headaches. If an EPTS condition is not aggravated by military service, the finding will be not in line of duty, EPTS. If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an individual will be discharged with severance pay or retired.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | AR20060013560C071029
The PEB informed the applicant that the evidence established that his disability was not unfitting at the time of his release from active duty and there is no documentation of permanent aggravation resulting from subsequent military duty. The medical evidence of record supports the determination that the applicant's unfitting condition was properly diagnosed and rated at the time of his discharge. The available medical records show he went before an MEB and a PEB and neither...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009626C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his recommended disability percentage be increased from 20 percent to a higher percentage on his 7 May 2004 physical evaluation board (PEB). Army Regulation (AR) 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...