| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests physical disability discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That there is medical evidence to support his request. He has been taking morphine since October 2000, every 4-6 hours as prescribed.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Army on 27 September 1990 for 2 years and 21 weeks. He was released from active duty on 23 February 1993 and assigned to a Reserve unit in Newark, Ohio. He reenlisted in the Army for three years on 4 February 1994, and reenlisted again for three years on 6 June 1996. On 8 June 1998 he reenlisted for another three years. The applicant was a senior construction equipment repairer, MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) 62B30.
The applicant’s four NCO evaluation reports beginning in May 1996 and the last one ending in June 1999 show that his rating officials considered him to be an outstanding soldier who should be immediately promoted. Each report shows that he passed the Army physical fitness test, with the report ending in June 1999 indicating that he scored 287 on that test (out of a possible 300).
On 23 December 1999 the applicant was given a permanent profile of 1 1 3 1 1 1 for chronic low back pain. That profile indicated that he could not do certain activities to include the two mile run and sit-ups. He was limited to lifting up to 40 pounds.
In a 26 January 2000 memorandum for the MOS/Medical Retention Board (MMRB) the applicant’s commanding officer stated that the applicant was the best and hardest working mechanic in the 8th Engineer Battalion, that he possessed the moral fortitude, character, and work ethic that all should emulate; and that he had received numerous impact awards for his superior professionalism and dedication since he came to the battalion. She stated that the applicant currently experienced chronic low back pain which limited his lifting ability to 40 pounds and marching ability to two miles and that medical condition hampered his ability to perform in his MOS. She stated that the applicant was a tremendous asset and she would serve with him again in whatever MOS the MMRB sees him fit to continue his service.
The applicant’s NCO evaluation report for the 11 month period ending in May 2000 shows that his rater and his senior rater believed him to be among the best NCOs, with his senior rater stating that he should be promoted immediately, selected immediately for ANCOC (Advanced NCO Course), and assigned as a platoon sergeant. His rater stated that the applicant’s profile did not hinder his ability to perform his duties, those of a senior construction equipment repairer.
On 11 May 2000 the Commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, approved the recommendation of a MMRB and directed that the applicant be referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).
A 7 July 2000 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant had chronic low back pain with a P3 profile. In the report of medical history the applicant furnished for that examination, he stated that he was in good health, and not taking any medications. He listed numerous present and past ailments, to include his chronic low back pain, numerous broken bones, severe headaches from concussion, patella femoral syndrome right knee, and painful ankle. That report indicated that his low back pain began in 1996 after returning from Kuwait.
In a 7 July 2000 memorandum to the President of the PEB, the applicant’s commanding officer stated that the applicant’s duty performance was acceptable; however, his limitations greatly reduced his effectiveness and influence. His limitations included the inability to perform maintenance on vehicles when excessive bending, reaching, or lifting was involved. She stated that those actions were required routinely in his MOS. She stated that under normal circumstances a soldier in the applicant’s position would be required to execute all of the limitations listed on a daily basis, as well as supervise other enlisted members in his section performing those activities.
A 12 September 2000 MEB narrative summary indicates that the applicant had stated that he developed low back pain in December 1996 while serving in Kuwait, and that he had constant mild low back pain with intermittent episodes of moderate low back pain on very infrequent occasions. The applicant stated that the low back pain radiated to his right leg and foot, but denied any history of significant trauma to his spine or lower extremity, denied any history of spine surgery, and denied any weakness in his lower extremity. The applicant denied any bowel or bladder changes and he had no saddle anesthesia or numbness in his lower extremities.
The summary indicated that the physical examination of his back revealed no midline markers, no evidence of scoliosis, flexion to 85 percent of normal, extension to 40 percent of normal, and side bending to 50 percent of normal. It indicated that the applicant had pain with rotation and extension of his lumbar spine. MRI evaluation of the lumbar spine revealed no significant abnormalities and bone scan likewise revealed no significant abnormalities.
The summary indicated that the applicant stated that he had mild low back pain with intermittent moderate low back pain which was not activity related, but did state that the pain was exacerbated with side bending, rotation, and extension of his lumbar spine. He denied any recent shooting or radiating pain to his right lower extremity and stated there had been no significant change in his condition over the recent past.
The summary indicated that the applicant was unable to perform certain duty responsibilities associated with his MOS. He was unable to crawl in and around vehicles, and was unable to repetitively lift heavy objects or to carry a heavy ruck sack. He was able to perform an alternate physical training test, but could not perform the sit-ups portion of the test.
The examining physician stated that the applicant met the retention criteria in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3-29, but was unable to perform a number of his duty responsibilities secondary to chronic low back pain. He stated that while the applicant was fit for retention, he should be considered for reclassification to another MOS. He also recommended that he be continued on [active duty?] with his current permanent profile. The MEB referred the applicant to a PEB.
In an 18 September 2000 appeal, the applicant stated that he did not agree with reclassification, stating that there was no MOS which he would be interested in reclassifying into, and that in regard to career progression, there was only a slight chance of promotion. He stated that he was always taught to lead by example; however, he could no longer do that, and it would be in the best interests of the Army and himself for him to make way for another soldier who could [lead by example]. He stated that the statement which indicated mild low back pain with intermittent episodes of moderate low back pain was actually moderate low back pain with intermittent episodes of severe back pain lasting 3 to 4 days every week or two.
On 27 September 2000 a PEB determined that the applicant was physically unfit and recommended a disability rating of 10 percent, and separation with severance pay. The applicant concurred. The PEB findings and recommendation were approved on 29 September 2000.
On 6 November 2000 the Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) modified the findings and recommendation of the PEB and found the applicant fit for duty within the limits of his profile, and that he be returned to duty. The USAPDA stated that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of unfit, and that the applicant had experienced back pain and sufficiently performed duties since 1996 with no significant worsening of his pain. The MEB indicated that he met retention standards, and although the commanders suggested some limitations of duty in their performance letters, both the soldier’s current first sergeant and immediate supervisor stated that he could do his duties satisfactorily, including climbing onto and about equipment. The USAPDA stated that the applicant’s duties involved supervision of junior soldiers who did most of the heavy work. The USAPDA stated that although the applicant had some problems with running and morning physical training, he performed adequately as a mechanic.
In an informal note to President of the PEB, a doctor, the deputy commander of the USAPDA, stated that he had carefully reviewed his (President of the PEB) rebuttal of the proposed modification, but was not dissuaded to dismiss because of the statements provided by the applicant’s first sergeant and first line supervisor (the commander’s statement was quite ambivalent); the MEB narrative summary recommendation; and the recommendation by the attending physician, who while recommending retention, also recommended that the applicant be considered for reclassification.
A 5 October 2000 memorandum (referred to in the 6 November 2000 USAPDA memorandum) indicates that an official of the USAPDA spoke to the applicant’s first sergeant and his immediate supervisor. That memorandum indicated that the first sergeant opined that the applicant could perform his duties as a mechanic. It also indicated that the applicant’s immediate supervisor stated that she saw him climbing on equipment assisting junior soldiers, but that he did have some problems with running and physical training in the morning. She stated that once he got “warmed up” he appeared to be able to perform adequately as a mechanic and had continued to work in the motor pool and had not had his mechanic duties limited.
A 13 October 2000 medical record indicates that the applicant was referred to the Pain Management Clinic at Darnall Army Hospital at Fort Hood, and medications were prescribed, to include 60 tablets of morphine.
In a 7 November 2000 reply to an inquiry from a Member of Congress (MC), the USAPDA informed that official of the applicant’s current status, and stated that it was awaiting the applicant’s election to the modified PEB findings. It also informed the MC that if the applicant was continued in the service, he was not precluded from entering the disability process again should his condition deteriorate.
In a 13 November 2000 memorandum to the USAPDA, an NCO stated that he had been stationed with the applicant since January 1997 and immediately noticed he had problems performing his job due to his back. He stated this condition had worsened and had personally witnessed on more than one occasion his inability to be mobile. He stated that due to his current deterioration he was unable to perform his job or be an asset to the Army.
In a memorandum of that same date to the USAPDA, another NCO stated that he had been stationed with the applicant for approximately six years, and had seen a drastic change in his physical condition, and that from 1995 and 1996 when there was hardly anything he could not do, until now, when he could not lift, bend, or crawl, on or around vehicles. Although the applicant was a Staff Sergeant, he was still required to work on vehicles the same as everyone else.
On 13 November 2000 the applicant’s first line supervisor stated that she had been unable to provide a fair opinion of the applicant’s performance due to a lack of time assigned to the unit, when questioned by a representative of the board (USAPDA). She now assessed his performance as unfavorable due to his physical condition. She stated that she had read the supposed transcript of the phone conversation that she had with a representative of the board, and that there was a big difference between what she said and what was written on the paper.
On 17 November 2000 the applicant’s first sergeant also stated that he had read the transcript of the phone conversation with a representative of the board, and that transcript inaccurately reflected his comments concerning the applicant’s performance. He stated that the applicant’s physical condition severely limited his ability to perform his duties, that the applicant suffered daily from his condition and his inability to bend over and lift heavy objects rendered him ineffective in his duties. He stated that the applicant was a highly motivated NCO but was limited in his duties. He stated that the applicant’s condition appeared to worsen as time goes by.
The applicant appealed the modification, stating that he was in a constant state of pain, which hindered his job performance. He also stated that the statements taken from a phone conversation with his first sergeant and supervisor were incorrect. He stated that the first sergeant had only been there for a few months and had little contact with him in his work place, and could not have made an assessment of his condition. He stated that his supervisor had not been around him long enough [to make an assessment of his condition] in that she was new to the unit.
On 20 November 2000 the USAPDA informed the applicant that it had reviewed his appeal to the 6 November 2000 revision of the PEB findings. It stated that his medical condition had been present since 1996, that his condition had been considered mild with little change, and that he had continued to perform his duties. It stated that the MEB indicated his condition met medical retention standards and that his profile did not place any significant limitations on his daily military and MOS duties. It noted the conflicting reports of his supervisors, but stated that the preponderance of evidence indicated that he was fit for duty within the limitations of his profile. It informed him that his case would be forwarded to the Army Physical Disability Appeals Board (APDAB) for an independent review.
On 5 December 2000 the applicant requested assistance from a MC, stating that the USAPDA stated that reasons the findings of the PEB were modified were because of statements by his first sergeant and supervisor, both of whom stated they did not say what was written. He stated that now the USAPDA stated that it did not matter what they said. He stated that his condition was not mild, and that his physical activities have been limited since 1996, and he has not been able to work on equipment or do physical training for the last two years. He stated that he received a pain block shot in his back recently, but it did not stop the pain, and he was currently taking morphine. He stated that he was trying to get an appointment for the next procedure which would consist of him receiving four or five shots in his back.
On 19 December 2000 the USAPDA replied to an inquiry from a MC, providing that official with the current status of the applicant’s case, that it had been referred to the APDAB for review.
The Medical Advisor to the Army Review Boards Agency indicated that he examined the records and correspondence pertaining to the applicant, recounted the applicant’s case history, to include the decision of the PEB, the information provided in the USAPDA modification, and the statement by the MEB that he met retention standards. The Medical Advisor noted that although his commanders suggested some limitations of duty in their performance letters, both his first sergeant and immediate supervisor stated that he could do his duties satisfactorily, including climbing onto and about equipment. In this respect, the Medical Advisor noted the 5 October 2000 memorandum prepared by an official of the USAPDA. The Medical Advisor also noted the applicant’s appeal and the statements from his first sergeant and supervisor, which strongly refuted the statements in the 5 October 2000 memorandum, indicating that those appeals presented no new or substantive medical evidence or information.
On 8 February 2001 the APDAB concurred with the decision of the USAPDA, and stated that the applicant was physically fit and returned to duty as fit. The APDAB stated that it had specifically adopted the rationale of the USAPDA in its discussion of the case and final decision.
In a 13 February 2001 memorandum to the Army Review Boards Agency, the 8th Engineer Battalion commanding officer stated that he wanted to prevent a wrong being done to the applicant – that the applicant should not be kept on active duty, but separated as per the original PEB recommendation of 27 September 2000. He stated that he had known the applicant, a valued member of the battalion, since 1996, and that he was a fine dedicated soldier who in the past had worked late into the night to repair the unit’s equipment. He stated that the applicant was an honest and trustworthy soldier and he believed that the applicant’s ailment to be real. He stated that the applicant was taking prescribed morphine by tablet every four to six hours as needed, and that any soldier who takes morphine daily was not fit for duty. He went on to say that the applicant could not accomplish his mission in his MOS in the battalion or any other unit in the Army. He said that his back pain had changed the way he walked and that he could no longer lift heavy objects, or crawl around, under and in engineer equipment as he was required to do so. He found him unfit to deploy with the battalion on a recent rotation. He stated that he read the statements made by the applicant’s first sergeant, and had discussed the phone call [with a representative of the USAPDA] with the first sergeant. He stated that as a result of the first sergeant’s praise for a soldier doing his best under strenuous conditions, the PEB findings were reversed and the applicant was found fit for duty, which he was not. He requested that the APDAB reconsider its determination.
The 6 November 2000 revised PEB proceedings that determined that the applicant was fit for duty were approved on 20 February 2001. On 22 February 2001 the USAPDA informed the applicant’s commander at Fort Hood, Texas, that the applicant was determined to be fit for active duty, and was physically fit to perform his duties of his office, grade, rank, and MOS, and was deployable within the limitations of his profile.
Information obtained from the enlisted distribution and assignment system (EDAS) indicates that the applicant declined to reenlist. The applicant was discharged on 7 June 2001, his ETS (expiration of term of service) date. He had almost 10 years of service.
Army Regulation 611-201 provides the enlisted military occupational special classification structure for the Army and states that enlisted personnel management will be based on the career management field (CMF) in that regulation. Each CMF provides visible and logical patterns for progression to successively higher level jobs and provides standard grade-skill level relationships. That regulation provides for the military occupational specialty code (MOSC) which is used to classify enlisted soldiers, to provide detailed occupational identity in records, orders, reports, management systems, and data bases, and as a basis for training , evaluation, promotion, and other related management subsystem development. The enlisted MOSC consists of nine characters. The first three characters identify the MOS with regard to level of skill, and the fourth character with the first three characters showing skill and grade level in the MOS. The skill level denotes level of qualification in the total MOS. There is a direct relationship between the grade and skill level. Each skill level identifies positions in authorized ranks, i.e., skill level 1 – PFC and SPC; skill level 2 – SGT; skill level 3 – SSG, etc. The MOS specification contains information that is required for classification of positions and personnel. The MOS specification contains – the title and MOS designation, the major duties (the soldier must be able to perform all tasks below the skill level of his current grade), and the physical demands rating and qualifications for initial award of MOS. The physical demands rating indicates the relative physical work requirements of each MOS performed in a combat environment and the ratings will be either light, medium, moderately heavy, heavy, or very heavy.
The major duties of a construction equipment repairer includes supervision and performing unit, direct support and general support maintenance on construction equipment which includes that used for earthmoving, grading, and compaction; lifting and loading; quarrying and rock crushing, etc. Duties for MOSC 62B10 include maintaining and replacing brake actuators, batteries, starter motors, alternators, mechanical fuel pumps, drive shafts, universal joints, and so forth. Duties for MOSC 62B20 including performing duties in the preceding skill level and supervising lower grade soldiers and providing technical guidance to the soldiers, troubleshooting, repairing and overhauling engines, final drives, power trains, hydraulic systems, and fuel system components. Duties also include performing welding and cuttings to accomplish repairs. Duties for MOSC 62B30 include performing duties in the preceding skill level; supervising lower grade soldiers and providing technical guidance; supervising and inspecting maintenance of construction, power bridging, and associated equipment; and performing troubleshooting of engines, power trains, earth-moving components, etc. The physical demands rating and qualifications for initial award of MOS – a physical demands rating of heavy, and a physical profile of 2 2 2 2 2 2. The physical requirements of a soldier with skill level 2 in that MOS requires the soldier to frequently carry and lift 75 pounds and to occasionally lift/lower, push, and pull 150 ft/lbs.
Army Regulation 600-60 implements and establishes operating procedures for the Physical Performance Evaluation System (PPES) that will upgrade the physical quality of the force and ensure each soldier is physically qualified to perform in his or her Primary Military Occupational Specialty (PMOS) or specialty code worldwide and under field conditions. The PPES is a program designed to evaluate soldiers with permanent medical conditions or impairments to determine if they can perform satisfactorily in their PMOS or specialty code in a worldwide field environment. The PPES provides for an MMRB to serve as an administrative screening board to make this determination. It provides the MMRB convening authority (MMRBCA) with increased flexibility to determine a soldier's deployability, reclassification potential, or referral to the Army's physical disability system. The MMRBCA appoints a MMRB to evaluate soldiers within his or her command. MMRB recommendations should only be based on a soldier's physical ability to reasonably perform in PMOS or specialty.
Current Army policy requires that a soldier be capable of performing the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating under worldwide field conditions. The PPES allows field commanders to evaluate the physical abilities of soldiers using the Army's management standard of worldwide deployability under field conditions. In order to perform in a worldwide field environment, soldiers should
be reasonably capable of accomplishing basic soldier physical tasks (FM 21-2). Additionally, there are physical tasks of varying difficulty that must be
accomplished in order to satisfactorily perform in a specific MOS and skill level (AR 611-201, appendix B). It must be clearly understood that the standards in
AR 611-201 and FM 21-2 are only guidelines to be used by an MMRB of what should reasonably be expected of a soldier in any worldwide job assignment. When the published physical standards are insufficient or not available as in the case of commissioned officer specialty codes and warrant officer MOS, the MMRB will have to use their own experience, common sense, and judgment in deciding what should normally be expected of that soldier. The overriding consideration by the MMRB is if the soldier possesses the physical ability to perform PMOS or specialty code assignments worldwide under field conditions. It should be noted that certain medical conditions may restrict soldiers from full participation in unit physical training programs and the standard three event Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). Although participation in unit physical training and passing the APFT are MMRB considerations, referring
a soldier for further evaluation in the disability system based only on these factors is inappropriate.
The MMRB is an administrative screening board charged with the responsibility of comprehensively evaluating a soldier's ability or inability to physically perform PMOS or specialty code tasks in a worldwide field environment. The MMRB consists of voting and nonvoting members. Voting members are a board president in the grade of colonel (06); a medical officer in the grade of colonel (06) or lieutenant colonel (05) or a civilian doctor designated by the MEDCEN/MEDDAC commander when a medical officer is not reasonably available (The medical officer regardless of date of rank or civilian doctor will
not be the president of the board); two board officers (combat arms, combat support, or combat service support officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel
(05); and a command sergeant major or a sergeant major. Nonvoting members are a personnel officer who advises the MMRB concerning personnel policy and procedures; and a recorder. On completion of the evaluation, the MMRB will recommend to the convening authority-- (1) that the soldier be retained in his PMOS or specialty, (2) that the soldier be reclassified, (3) that the soldier be placed in a probationary status, or (4) that the soldier be referred to the Army's physical disability system.
The recommendation for reclassification or change of specialty codes will be made only when the soldier cannot physically perform the full range of PMOS or specialty code duties, but possesses the physical ability to perform in a current shortage or balanced MOS or specialty code. The soldier must meet all qualifications of the new MOS or specialty code, and reclassification or change in specialty code must be in the best interest of the Army and the individual. Reclassification or change of specialty code should not be recommended for soldiers when retraining requirements would not be cost effective. In recommending reclassification or change in specialty potential, the MMRB will consider— (1) expected value to the Army in a new PMOS or specialty, (2) commander's comments, (3) worldwide deployability, (4) past and present job performance, (5) prior military and civilian training and experience, and (6) ASVAB scores (for enlisted soldiers only). If reclassification or change in specialty code is the appropriate course of action, the MMRB will provide justification and recommendations to the MMRB convening authority for forwarding to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).
The recommendation for referral to the Army's physical disability system will be made when the soldier's assignment limitations or medical condition preclude satisfactory performance in any MOS or specialty code for which the Army has a requirement in a worldwide field environment.
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. It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to document a soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the soldier’s status. A decision is made as to the soldier’s medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501, chapter 3. If the MEB determines the soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the soldier to a PEB.
Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army. It is a fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of soldiers who are referred to the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the soldier against the physical requirements of the soldier’s particular office, grade, rank or rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the soldier; and to make findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability.
Army Regulation 635-40 also states in pertinent part that the USAPDA has the authority to review and confirm PEB actions to ensure that the soldier received a full and fair hearing, the proceedings were conducted according to the governing regulations, and the findings and recommendations of the MEB and PEB were just, equitable, consistent with the facts, and in keeping with the provisions of law and regulations. Based upon its review, the USAPDA may concur with the findings and recommendation of the PEB, return the case to the PEB for reconsideration, issued revised findings providing for a change in the disposition of the soldier or change in the soldier’s disability rating, or refer the case to the APDAB. If the USAPDA modifies the findings and recommendations of the PEB, it will furnish the soldier a copy of the revision and afford the soldier the opportunity to rebut the revision. If the soldier nonconcurs and submits a statement of rebuttal, and the consideration of the rebuttal does not result in a change to the revised findings, the USAPDA will forward the case to APDAB for review.
The APDAB reviews cases to determine if the soldier received a full and fair hearing, the evaluation proceedings conformed to current laws and governing regulations, and the findings and recommendations of the PEB, as changed or modified by the USAPDA are supported by the evidence. The APDAB will either concur with the decision of the USAPDA, concur with the recommendations of the PEB, concur with the requests contained in the rebuttal submitted by the soldier, or specify new findings and recommendations or other proper action.
Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-2b states in pertinent part that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.
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 Board notes the determination made by the PEB. Nonetheless, the MEB which referred the applicant to the PEB, determined that he was fit for retention, albeit with consideration for reclassification into another MOS. The MEB also recommended that he be continued on active duty with his current permanent profile.
2. The USAPDA, which reviewed the findings and recommendations of the PEB, thought likewise, considered him fit for duty within the limits of his profile, and that he should be returned to duty. The USAPDA reviewed his records and considered his rebuttal, to include the supporting statements provided by fellow soldiers, and adhered to its decision that he was fit for duty. The Board notes that the USAPDA indicated that the applicant’s condition had been present since 1996, that his condition had been considered mild with little change, and the applicant had continued to perform his duties. The Medical Advisor to the Army Review Boards Agency also conducted a review opining, in effect, that the applicant was fit for duty. The APDAB concurred with the decision of the USAPDA, stating that the applicant was physically fit and should be returned to duty as fit.
3. Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions, the applicant was fit for retention as noted by competent medical authorities. The Board notes that he continued to serve on active duty until his separation in June of this year, some 9 months after the actions by the PEB.
4. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
5. 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 that requirement.
6. 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
__SLP __ __ALR __ __TEO _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001053852 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011023 |
| 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. | 108.00 |
| 2. | 177 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002606
The applicant requests correction of the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)/Medical Retention Board's (MMRB) recommendation, dated 5 October 2008, to show "refer to the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES)" instead of "discharge." The applicant states: * He received an approved line of duty (LOD) determination for lower back spasm on 3 February 2004 * This was the same condition for which he received a permanent physical profile on 5 June 2008 * The physical profile states...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078658C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was informed that the Standby Advisory Board did not approve his name to be added to the recommended list announced in memorandum, TAPC-MSL-E, dated 2 May 2002, Subject: Promotion List to Sergeant First Class. A soldier who is reclassified, or reassigned pending reclassification, in another MOS before the adjournment date of the board, has been considered in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008859
Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Although the applicant contends she should have a medical discharge, her iPERMS record shows she was voluntarily discharged for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016871
Since he was serving on active duty under Title 32, U.S. Code (USC), and he had a line of duty (LOD) determination, he should have gone through the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Medical Retention Board (MMRB) process rather than the man-day (M-Day) process. His service medical records specifically the DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) that documented his injury are not available for review with this case. The Chief, Personnel Policy Division,...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00031
The right shoulder injury as well as left knee pain, right wrist pain and foot pain were addressed in the narrative summary (NARSUM) and forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on the DA Form 3947 as medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501. Right Shoulder Condition . Right Shoulder Condition5003-520120% COMBINED20% ______________________________________________________________________________
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012918
The applicant provides the following documents in support of his claim: DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 18 November 1988, 16 May 1990, and 22 May 1990; Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 16 August 2000; Self-Authored Memorandum, dated 2 May 1990; German Doctors Statement, dated 10 April 1990; Standard Form 519-B (Radiologic Consultation Request/Report); Headquarters, 56th Field Artillery Command Memorandum, Subject: Notification of MOS [Military Occupational...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605617C070209
On 23 April 1996, a member of Congress was advised by the PERSCOM authorities that the applicants request for an extension on active duty beyond his mandatory release date of 29 February 1996 was not favorably considered; that, as a two time nonselect for promotion to CW3, he was required by law to separate from active duty; that, although a MMRB recommended the applicant for reclassification as a supply warrant officer, this action was taken 4 months after he had been a nonselect for...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00943
Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the respective Army Board for Correction of Military Records. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the chronic LBP (EPTS/not PSA) contended condition and so no additional...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014575
The applicant requests a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 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 board recommended he be retained in his PMOS and the CG approved the board's recommendation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060982C070421
If this initial evaluation indicates the soldiers is not fit to continue membership or assignment in his/her MOS, the case records will be submitted to the State MDRB for determination. This initial medical evaluation will result in one of four recommendations: (1) fully fit for continued duty in current MOS without limitations of duty; (2) fit for retention and combat duty but with duty limitations which may be temporary with anticipated return to normal function requiring more than 90...