APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of the type of relief granted to him by the Secretary of the Army on his application for correction of his military records, wherein his general discharge for unsuitability, personality disorder, was corrected to a discharge due to physical disability, rated 10 percent disabled, with severance pay.
APPLICANT STATES: He should have been granted a higher disability rating by the Secretary.
NEW EVIDENCE AND/OR INFORMATION: In support of his request the applicant submits a decision by the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) to remand his case to the office which denied him a total disability rating on individual unemployability for reconsideration.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicants military records were incorporated in the two Memoranda of Consideration prepared during the original two reviews of his case.
The applicants original request was denied on 5 September 1979.
In supplemental proceedings by the Board dated 5 November 1980 the Board recommended that the applicants records be corrected to show that he was physically unfit and was discharged due to physical disability, rated 10 percent disabled, with severance pay. That recommendation was based primarily on an advisory opinion which had been obtained from the Physical Disability Agency (PDA).
The PDA had stated that the applicant had a severe character and behavior disorder while he was on active duty which probably should have been classified as a borderline personality, that he did not suffer from schizophrenia, despite what the VA had stated. The PDA continued that although he periodically had become psychotic and those episodes resembled schizophrenia, he did not lose contact with reality or have hallucinations or delusions, symptoms which accompany schizophrenia. The PDA had recommended that the applicants records be corrected to show that he was physically unfit, rated 10 percent disabled, as a compromise in a case where there is no clear evidence that a disability separation was warranted.
Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, provides that personality disorders and substance use disorders may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability. Interference with effective performance of duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels, not medical.
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. While the decision of the BVA shows that the severity of the applicants disability has increased over the years since his separation, it does not establish that the applicant suffered from schizophrenia while he was on active duty or that the severity of his disability while he was in the service should have warranted more than a 10 percent disability rating if it had been ratable at that time.
2. While the applicants disability has been accepted as schizophrenia by the VA, and the VA has rated the applicant for that condition, those rulings do not in any way show that the applicant suffered from that condition while he was in the Army or, therefore, obligate the Army to change its rating of the applicant. The VA operates under its own rules, regulations and laws which require, by law, that the veteran be given the benefit of doubt. It appears that the VA has given the applicant that benefit of doubt.
3. The Board previously granted the applicant a discharge for physical unfitness, rated 10 percent disabled, more as a compassionate gesture than as a corrective action. The PDA had confirmed that the applicant did not have a ratable medical condition while he was on active duty. He had a personality disorder. To now increase the applicants disability rating is not supported by the evidence of record and would not be appropriate.
4. 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 in the relief previously granted to him by the Board.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 1997-115
His diagnoses on discharge were reported as follows: “1. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 18, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant the requested relief. 1995), indicates that the Commandant’s decision was justified because the applicant “was not treated or rated for [paranoid schizophrenia] while serving on active duty.” The Chief Counsel also stated that the apparent contradiction between the VA’s findings and those of the Coast Guard...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606887C070209
Accordingly, on 14 November 1995 a formal PEB was convened and recommended that the applicant be rated 50 percent disabled. Therefore, the PDA recommended the applicants rating be increased from 50 to 70 percent disabled. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the name of the individual concerned was placed on the PDRL, rated 70 percent disabled, effective 10 January 1996.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000295C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings be corrected to include his civilian diagnosed sleep disorder (severe sleep obstructive apnea); that his disability rating be increased from 20 percent to 30 percent or higher; and that he be separated by reason of disability retirement vice disability with severance pay. The applicant states he believes that had he been referred for a sleep study prior to being separated, his disability rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014590
Officials at the PDA opined that the applicant did not provide any evidence of an unfitting blood related condition at the time he was being evaluated and recommended that no changes be made to the applicant's records. The Army system requires that the Soldier only be rated as the condition(s) exist(s) at the time of the PEB hearing. Inasmuch as the PEB proceedings are not present in the available evidence for the Board to review, it must be presumed, based on the explanation from the PDA,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710467C070209
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009889
Army Enlistment physical and VA records indicated no PTSD from USMC service. The PEB found the applicant physically unfit and recommended a rating of 0 percent and separation, without disability benefits. The PEB stated that his Army enlistment physical and VA records indicated no PTSD from USMC service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710467
The Board considered the following evidence: At that time he stated that he had not been hospitalized since his hospitalization in the Army. Psychiatric experts at the PDA state that the applicant’s military treatment records support that finding.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014079
The applicant provided a self-authored statement, sleep study, and a letter from a physician as new evidence that will be considered by the Board. This office stated that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a PEB would have found the applicant unfit for sleep apnea in 2000 and that military disability compensation can only be provided if there was a finding of unfitness for that condition. The opinion stated the applicant: * was separated from the military with severance pay...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01074
She was given several “rule out” diagnoses (delusional disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and paranoid personality disorder/traits) at the start of her treatment.The CI was followed by an outpatient psychiatrist whodocumented “hx of paranoid personality”on a progress note dated 07 May 2002.The CI was hospitalized following this visit which recommended that the CI be evaluated by a psychologist and considered for “repeat MEB.”(It was noted that the provider’s progress notes that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02424
The Board noted that the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment and personality disorders, but a determination was made by the evaluator that she did not have a psychiatric disorder that warranted disposition by a medical evaluation board, and that her personality disorder did not significantly impair her ability to adapt to military service. In view of the fact that the applicant’s symptoms were very mild at the time of her mental health evaluation, and the presence of a pre-morbid...