Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051467C070420
Original file (2001051467C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:                  

BOARD DATE: 5 April 2001
DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001051467
                          

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.
Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. P. A. Castle Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:
Ms. June Hajjar Chairperson
Ms. Celia L. Adolphi Member
Mr. Harry B. Oberg Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

          Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
          Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
          advisory opinion, if any)

 APPLICANT REQUESTS : Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by showing that he received a medical discharge.

 APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was discharged from the Army National Guard (ARNG) because he was medically unqualified for retention. That based on a recent determination from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) his condition is determined to be directly related to military service.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 23 June 1999 (AR1999018210).

In support of his request the applicant submits a rating decision from the VA dated 5 June 2000. The decision grants the applicant 60 percent compensation for his heart condition and determines the condition to be service-connected.

These documents were not available to the Board previously and constitute new evidence that requires Board review.

The records reveal that a medical examination determined that the applicant’s conditions were medically disqualifying, that they were developmental and congenital, and existed prior to his enlistment in the Army. The applicant’s request to change his discharge status to a medical discharge is based on his claim that his medical condition directly resulted in his discharge.

The Board has previously been advised by the Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) in similar cases that the difference in military and VA ratings arises out of the basic postulates upon which disability ratings are based by the two agencies of the Government. Military disability awards arise out of and are compensation for the military career interruption produced by an unfitting disease or injury. VA benefits are based on the impairment of civilian career or employment arising from service-connected or aggravated disease or injury. It is, therefore, not unexpected that these two different systems should at times produce different evaluations of the impairment arising out of the same injury or disease.
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 fact that the VA has awarded the applicant a disability rating that is not in consonance with the Army's decision, but is within the policies of that agency, does not mean that either decision is erroneous. The VA rating does not establish physical unfitness or the degree thereof, for Department of the Army purposes. Each department is bound to operate within its own rules, regulations, and policies.

2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The applicant has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary.

3. 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.

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
__JH____ ____CLA_ ___HBO__ DENY APPLICATION

         Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
         of Military Records



INDEX

CASE ID AR2001051467
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 010405
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 108.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.




Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001102C070206

    Original file (20050001102C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he should have been rated 30 percent disabled and medically retired. On 13 August 2002, the DVA examined the applicant and found him to be 70 percent disabled for major depression, 10 percent disabled for reason of low back pain, and 10 percent disabled for bilateral foot pain. Operating under different law and its own policies and regulations, the DVA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military service, awards...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001102C070206

    Original file (20050001102C070206.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he should have been rated 30 percent disabled and medically retired. On 13 August 2002, the DVA examined the applicant and found him to be 70 percent disabled for major depression, 10 percent disabled for reason of low back pain, and 10 percent disabled for bilateral foot pain. Operating under different law and its own policies and regulations, the DVA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military service, awards...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03094532C070212

    Original file (03094532C070212.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, based on the Physical Disability Agency policy, his back pain was rated at 0 percent under Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disability (VASRD) codes 5099- 5003. It is also noted that the VA rendered only a 20 percent rating for the applicant’s back condition, which, had the Army established the same rating, would still not have resulted in the applicant’s disability retirement.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000973C070206

    Original file (20050000973C070206.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states that, since the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has determined that the applicant's disabilities are not the result of a congenital defect, the Army should change its decision. The PEB members noted that the various defects were all secondary to surgery for the AVM and concluded that they were not compensable since they were the result of treatment for an EPTS condition. Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000973C070206

    Original file (20050000973C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Robert L. Duecaster | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Counsel states that, since the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has determined that the applicant's disabilities are not the result of a congenital defect, the Army should change its decision. The PEB members noted that the various defects were all secondary to surgery for the AVM and concluded that they were not compensable since they were the result...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007596

    Original file (20140007596.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In May 2011, a PEB found the FSM unfit to continue military service and opined that his condition neither occurred nor was aggravated by active duty service. The condition of ALS. Consequently, although FSM's medical condition of ALS was considered unfit, it was considered unfit by reason of physical disability neither incurred nor aggravated during any period of service while he was entitled to basic pay.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010123

    Original file (20070010123.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board found the applicant physically unfit and recommended he be separated with severance pay with a combined rating of 20 percent, if otherwise qualified. Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the Soldier and the Army. The available evidence shows the applicant appeared before a PEB.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016437

    Original file (20080016437.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He states that all of his service-connected disabilities should have been rated in his medical board evaluation. The USAPDA stated the applicant's MEBD fully reviewed all of the applicant's medical history and, at the time of the MEBD, the only condition that was limiting the applicant's performance of duty was his back pain. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019458

    Original file (20080019458.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's medical records show: a. c. On 25 February 2002, the applicant reported having been depressed for "years" with worsening since activation in 2001. Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010773

    Original file (20070010773.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System 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 disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or...