| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John E. Denning | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
2. The applicant requests her promotion to pay grade E-7 be reinstated.
3. The applicant states that she was found unfit for duty only after her promotion to pay grade E-7.
4. The applicant’s military records show that she was assigned to the Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program from 29 May to 15 August 1990.
5. On 16 August 1990, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. She completed her required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 98X1L (EW/SIGINT Specialist – Linguist).
6. She was considered and selected for promotion to pay grade E-7 by the 1999 selection board and her name was placed on the Sergeant First Class (SFC) Selection List dated 3 September 1999.
7. On 9 November 1999, a medical narrative summary was completed based on a physical examination. This summary indicated a right shoulder anterior reconstruction in November 1992; a left knee diagnostic arthroscopy with plica excision in May 1994; a right shoulder arthroscopic debridement in September 1996; a left knee distal patellar realignment Elmslie-Trillat procedure in December 1996; hemorrhoid removal in March 1977; a right knee distal patellar realignment Elmslie-Trillat procedure in May 1997; and, a cesarean section in June 1998. The summary concluded she did not meet medical retention standards based on a diagnoses of “Bilateral plantar fasciitis; bilateral anterior knee pain status post attempt at distal patellar realignments, failed; chronic right shoulder pain secondary to failed reconstruction and subsequent arthroscopic debridement with evidence of glenohumeral chondromalacia”. Her case was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD).
8. On 16 November 1999, she was issued a physical profile for multiple arthralgias (joint pain) which precluded her running, jumping, marching, push- ups, and deep knee bending.
9. On 14 January 2000, an MEBD diagnosis indicated she had bilateral plantar fasciitis; bilateral anterior knee pain status post attempt at distal patellar realignments, failed; and chronic right shoulder pain secondary to failed reconstruction and subsequent arthroscopic debridement with evidence of glenohumeral chondromalacia. Her case was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for disposition and adjudication.
10. She was promoted to pay grade E-7 effective 1 February 2000.
11. On 7 February 2000, a PEB found her physically unfit based on bilateral foot, knee, and right shoulder pain and recommended a combined rating of 20 percent.
12. On 4 April 2000, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Enlisted Promotions Branch erroneously administratively removed her from the 3 September 1999 SFC Selection List, under Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), paragraph 4-18 (Rules for administrative and command initiated removals from a centralized promotions list) based on the results of a MEBD vice a PEB.
13. On 19 July 2000, she was honorably discharged under Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 24B(3) for disability with severance pay in pay grade E-6. Her separation document indicates she had 9 years, 11 months and 4 days of creditable service for retirement.
14. Army Regulation 600-8-19 specifies:
(a) paragraph 4-18 (dated 1 November 1991), in effect at that time, indicates, in pertinent part, that there is nothing which authorizes the removal from a selection list based on the results of a MEBD. However, paragraph 1-10 (Recommendations for removal from a Departmental Headquarters (DA) list will be processed as follows) does indicate that before sending a removal action to DA for a standby advisory board to consider, it will be sent, in writing, to the soldier. The soldier will be allowed to respond to the proposed action, and may submit a rebuttal within 15 days after receipt of the written notice. A soldier who elects not to rebut, will sign a statement that he or she has reviewed the proposed action and elects not to submit a rebuttal.
(b) paragraph 1-10 (nonpromotable status) indicates, in pertinent part, that soldiers are nonpromotable to a higher grade when one of the following conditions exist: “u. A PEB determines that a soldier is no longer qualified for continued active service”.
15. Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1372 provides the legal authority for the grade to be awarded members being separated for physical disability. It states, in pertinent part, that at the time any member of an armed force who is separated for physical disability is entitled to the grade equivalent to the temporary or permanent regular or reserve grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which he or she is separated and which was found to exist as a result of a physical examination.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record shows the applicant was removed from the SFC Selection List, dated 3 September 1999, based on the results of an MEBD, and not the required PEB. Her name was therefore improperly removed from the list. This action caused the erroneous revocation of her promotion to pay grade E-7.
2. The applicant had been promoted to pay grade E-7 prior to the PEB’s declaration of unfitness. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to the proposed removal action as required by paragraph 1-10(b) 13, Army Regulation 600-8-19.
3. The applicant’s records should be corrected to show she was not removed from the promotion list and was separated in pay grade E-7.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected to show that the individual concerned was not removed from the 3 September 1999 SFC Selection List and is entitled to all pay and allowances based on her promotion to pay grade E-7 effective1 February 2000.
BOARD VOTE:
_tlp____ _fne____ _jed____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Fred N. Eichorn
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001055835 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010913 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 129.05 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01797
The examiner further noted that the CI was advised that she would have chronic knee pain associated with various activities and she would likely require ongoing therapy and medical follow-up. The non-medicalassessment documented that the CI had recent surgery and was not likely to be able to complete a physical fitness test; however if she was retained until her expiration of active service, she would still be able to perform her duties and also complete her physical therapy. Physical...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01106
The PEB adjudicated the right-shoulder condition as unfitting rated at 10%, citing criteria of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD);the bilateral knee, right-ankle and lumbar diagnoseswere consolidated as a single unfitting condition coded analogously to 5003 (degenerative arthritis)rated at 10%, with likely application ofthe U.S. Army Physical Disability Agencypain policy and/or AR 635-40 (B.24.f). There are multiple STR entries reflecting normal or nearly normal...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01856
There is insufficient evidence to support a finding of not unfitting for either knee.Therefore, it is reasonably justified that the CI be found unfit for continued military service in her MOS due to her left and right anterior knee pain with patellar crepitus and patellar apprehension condition. However, there is no evidence of any further examination in the record. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00804
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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records. After his original injury with dislocations of both shoulders, the CI had multidirectional instability and recurrent dislocations of both his right and left shoulders. Based on the condition the CI actually had, the shoulders can be rated either using 5201 for limited ROM or...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01906
A third and final MEB in October 2002 forwarded the bilateral knee condition, characterized as bilateral patellofemoral syndrome, status post(s/p) left patellar tendon to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) IAW 1850.4E.The MEB also identified and forwarded left shoulder superior labral tear, s/p arthroscopic repair and left hip greater trochanteric bursitis for IPEB adjudication. The IPEB adjudicated bilateral patellofemoral syndrome (PFS) as unfitting, rated 10%, with application...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010979
MEB Proceedings he provided in support of his previous application show, on 29 December 1992, an MEB diagnosed him to have chronic tendonitis of the left supraspinatus tendon, left patellar tendon, and left Achilles tendon, and recommended that he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). f. A VA Rating Decision, dated 28 September 2004, showing he was granted service-connection for: (1) left shoulder tendonitis rated at 20% from 1 May 2000. The available records show no evidence...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00726
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “MEB and PEB only looked at Patellofemoral Syndrome for 1 knee. The MEB narrative summary (NARSUM) examination completed in April 2005 noted a long history of bilateral patellofemoral syndrome that had not resolved with bilateral physical therapy, bilateral Synvisc injections, limited duty for bilateral knees, and right knee surgical lateral release and synovitis debridement. The VA C&P examination did measure the ROM of the left knee and it was normal.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01540
In 2005 I was only medical boarded and rated 20% for my Right Shoulder. The Board considered that following the two surgeries, the CI had painful limited left shoulder ROM with evidence of posttraumatic arthritis on X-rays. Physical Disability Board of Review
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00719
His treatment included medications, physical therapy, subacromial and nerve root injections, and three arthroscopic surgeries, without significant improvement. The PEB rated the shoulder condition as a muscle injury IAW §4.73, while the VA used §4.71a to rate the condition for impairment of the clavicle or scapula. These conditions likely contributed to the CI’s overall shoulder impairment, however, and are considered in the Board’s recommendations.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01963
7/10 knee pain. The Board noted there was no compensable loss of motion or painful motion on the MEB exam, but a positive DeLuca with 5 degrees of loss of flexion on repetition a month prior to separation on the VA exam. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.The Board did not...