| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his 40 percent disability rating be increased to 100 percent, retroactive to the day he was retired.
APPLICANT STATES: Physicians from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) have said that he was totally disabled when he retired from the Army. In addition, the Social Security Administration (SSA) awarded him a total disability pension effective 9 May 1989.
In support of his application he submits documents from the DVA which show that he was awarded a 40 percent disability rating from that department; 40 percent for chronic left superior and inferior gluteal nerve injury secondary to left SI joint and pubic sympaysis disruption with fibrous union, and zero percent for fracture of third finger, left hand. The DVA records also show that the applicant was diagnosed with Huntington’s Chorea, a hereditary condition which exhibits symptoms of dementia and motor dysfunction, around 1990, but the DVA determined that since the applicant did not exhibit any symptoms of that condition while on active duty, it was not service connected.
The applicant also submits a copy of his military and DVA medical records.
The applicant did not submit documentation confirming his contention that he has been awarded a disability pension by the SSA.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was commissioned upon successful completion of his studies at the US Military Academy, and entered on active duty on 6 June 1979. He completed the Adjutant General Basic and Advanced Course, and performed duties as a Personnel Systems Management officer, Operations Research Systems Analysis officer, and Armor officer. He was promoted to the rank of captain.
On 5 September 1989 the applicant was honorably discharged due to his placement on the Retired List, rated 40 percent disabled.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG). In that opinion Huntington’s disease is defined and its symptoms detailed, with the conclusion made that the applicant did not exhibit any symptoms of that disease while he was on active duty. Also obtained was an advisory opinion from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor who chronicled how the applicant was severely injured in a motorcycle accident in September 1979, how he was determined medically disqualified by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and physically unfit by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on 19 January 1982, how he was determined physically fit by a formal PEB on 2 March 1982 with a permanent profile for his lower extremities, and how he was again determined medically disqualified by an MEB on 22 May 1989, which led to a finding of physical unfitness by a PEB, a finding which was upheld by a formal hearing. In addition, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Physical Disability Agency (PDA) which also chronicles the applicant’s medical history, concludes that the applicant did not have any manifestations of Huntington’s disease while he was on active duty, opines that since Huntington’s disease is a hereditary disorder it could not be incurred while the applicant was entitled to basic pay, and recommends that the applicant’s military records remain unchanged. The applicant was furnished copies of these advisory opinions and given the opportunity to comment. His wife responded in his behalf stating that her husband had been told by physicians that the Army lifestyle and pressures, or even his motorcycle accident, could have caused an early onset of Huntington’s disease. She contends that as early as 1982 her husband would fall and run into things because of physical instability and could not follow through on orders because of mental instability.
Army Regulation 635-40, in effect at the time provided pertinently that while a soldier may have medical conditions or physical impairments ratable under the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities, he will not be retired or separated because of those conditions or impairments unless they render him unfit because of physical disability.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinions, it is concluded:
1. As is evident by the regulatory citations contained in the evidence of record, in order to be rated for a condition by the Army, the condition must render the soldier physically unfit to perform his or her duties. Since there is no evidence that the applicant exhibited symptoms of Huntington’s disease while he was on active duty, contrary to the applicant’s wife’s contentions, that disease could not have been physically unfitting. As such, the applicant was properly not rated for Huntington’s disease.
2. The informal PEB’s recommendation that the applicant be rated 40 percent disabled for residuals of his motorcycle accident was upheld by a formal PEB, and a review of that recommendation by the PDA has confirmed its appropriateness and legal sufficiency. The applicant has not submitted any evidence or argument which would cause this Board to question the correctness of the percentage of disability he was awarded by the Army for the residuals of his motorcycle accident.
3. While the applicant did not submit documentation to substantiate his SSA disability pension, applying to the SSA for disability benefits would be appropriate. While a condition may not be compensable by the Army or the DVA because it was not service connected, other agencies and departments within the Government may provide benefits or compensation, subject to the rules, regulations and laws governing those agencies and departments.
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
__rjw ___ ___kan __ ___reb__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001051656 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011025 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013150
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 7 May 2003, a formal PEB also found the applicant to be unfit for joint pain, rated 10 percent disabling, but increased his hepatitis rating to 10 percent. In that rebuttal he states that since his medical condition did not improve while he was on the TDRL, the only reason his disability rating was decreased was because his last PEB was held at an Air Force base.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012832
The applicant requests correction of his records to show all the conditions that were listed on his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) are rated. The reflux disease was rated at 10 percent and his psychiatric conditions were also rated. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army 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 or her office, grade, rank, or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010071
The applicant requests that his DA Form 199, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, issued on 3 September 1985, be corrected to show that his retirement is based on a disability resulting from injury or disease received in line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in line of duty during a period of war as defined by law; and that his disability resulted from a combat related injury as defined in 26 US Code, Section 104. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020534
The applicant requests that her 2 March 2003 discharge be voided and that she be retired by reason of physical disability with a 40-percent disability rating. The PEB determined she was physically unfit and recommended a rating of 10 percent. By 1 July 2003 Title 38Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans Relief, Chapter 1, DVA, Part 4Schedule for Rating was changed to show that VASRD Code 5293 provided the following: Evaluate intervertebral disc syndrome (preoperatively or postoperatively)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016426C071113
After reviewing the applicant’s case, the PEB found that the applicant was physically unfit and recommended that the applicant be retired by reason of "Permanent Disability." He stated that he was told that his retirement pay would not change from the 50 percent he was receiving while on TDRL status. The applicant’s request for an increase to the disability rating he was assigned by the PEB and the supporting evidence he provided were carefully considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001054
The PEB rated him at 10 percent under VASRD 9421, somatization disorder, for use of medications to control the symptoms of that particular diagnosed condition. Evidence of record shows the military only found one psychiatric condition to be present and unfitting when he was placed on the TDRL (conversion disorder) and he agreed with the initial diagnosis and rating of that condition. There is insufficient evidence to show the applicants PEB disability ratings are incorrect or that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016405
In its decision, the VA stated that an evaluation of 40 percent is assigned when insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities are required. The PDA stated that the applicant's physical profile only related to meal and medical care access, and did not preclude any exercise activities or physical training testing. The PDA recommended no change to the applicant's military records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000893
The applicant requests correction of his records to show that he was permanently retired from the military by reason of physical disability. 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. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087261C070212
When the applicant was being boarded by a formal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), her counsel’s request for a continuance so the applicant could have another physical examination was denied. Although the applicant was disabled when she was released from active duty on 18 September 1997, she was not given incapacitation pay until 15 February 1998. When taking these facts and applying them to the applicant’s request for incapacitation pay, there is no indication that the applicant was unable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005853
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080005853 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Upon review of the records, the PEB determined that the applicants shoulder was zero percent disabling prior to his ILOD accident. Army Regulation 635-40 provides that 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...