| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his separation be changed to a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That the VA has given him a combined disability rating of 60 percent. Therefore, he believes he should have received a medical discharge.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel makes no contention.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having had prior service, he re-entered active duty as a commissioned officer in September 1990. By letter dated 31 May 2000, he was notified that he was not selected for promotion and that he would be released from active duty not later than 1 December 2000.
The applicant apparently received a permanent physical profile for a knee condition on an unknown date. Around June 1999, he was evaluated by a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Medical Retention Board-directed Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB diagnosed his condition as mild left knee pain, status post 4-ACL reconstruction with no functional instability of his knee. It noted that he was able to perform all duties of his MOS as an Operating Room Nurse both in garrison and field environments. He had difficulty with running but was able to perform pushups and situps without limitation. He was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for adjudication. The results of the PEB are not available. Presumably, he was found fit for duty.
The applicant’s annual officer evaluation report for the period 9 June 1999 through 8 June 2000 shows that his rater rated his performance and potential for promotion as “outstanding performance, must promote.” His senior rater rated his promotion potential as “best qualified.” Comments were all highly laudatory and included “___ performed his duties as a Clinical Head Nurse in an outstanding manner” and “___is leaving active duty service with an excellent record of competent, confident, and compassionate nursing care.”
The applicant received an Army Commendation Medal for the period 5 September 1997 to 19 July 2000. The citation read in part “…___’s commitment to quality patient care was reflected in his outstanding clinical skills …”
On 1 November 2000, the applicant was released from active duty.
Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. It states that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, or rank. It states that a lack of special skills (such as the ability to complete the Army Physical Fitness Test) does not, in itself, establish eligibility for disability separation or retirement. Although the ability of a soldier to reasonably perform his duties in all geographic locations under all conceivable circumstances is a key to maintaining an effective and fit force, this criterion will not serve as the sole basis for a finding of unfitness. It states 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.
Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical
condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.
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. 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 this requirement.
2. The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulation, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit. The VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved (i. e., the more stringent standard by which a soldier is determined not to be medically fit for duty versus the standard by which a civilian would be determined to be socially or industrially impaired), an individual’s medical condition may be determined to be fit for military duty yet receive a disability rating by the VA.
3. In addition, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was not physically unfit. His last officer evaluation report and his Army Commendation Medal citation show that he was highly capable of performing his military duties up until his separation.
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
__cla___ __aao___ __hbo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057445 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011030 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105978C070208
The applicant's service medical records are not available. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. There is no evidence of record to show she was ever given a profile for her injury.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058998C070421
On 8 March 1984, an informal PEB found the applicant to be unfit for duty due to anterolateral rotatory instability and medial instability of the right knee with pain and swelling on exertion, rated as moderate, under the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 5257. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014685
The PEB found the applicant unfit due to tendonitis, chronic of the left supraspinatus tendon, left patellar tendon, and the left Achilles tendon, rated at 10 percent disabling. Whether the decision to deny service connection for left patellar tendonitis and left shoulder bursitis was clearly and unmistakably erroneous. The available documentary evidence, provided by the applicant, shows the VA reevaluated his medical conditions in October 2000 and granted 10 percent disability ratings for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058709C070421
The applicant did have a slight hearing problem but there is no evidence to show that his hearing loss was disabling or that it affected his duty performance. The PEB also determined that although the applicant had chronic knee pain, his knee was normal according to x-rays and MRI. The evidence of record supports the determination that the applicant's unfitting condition was properly diagnosed and that his 10 percent disability rating for bipolar disorder and his zero percent rating for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010504C080213
The applicant states that his medical condition was diagnosed after he had been in the Army for over 13 years. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was fit for duty at the time of his separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064881C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 23 November 1998, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for duty due to chronic pain in the right leg due to stress reaction of the proximal tibial plateau, VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 5003, and recommended his separation with severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating. The Board notes that at the time of the applicant’s MEB his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075116C070403
COUNSEL CONTENDS : That the applicant has submitted VA records showing he was assigned a 20 percent rating for a left knee condition and a 10 percent rating for a left thumb condition. The VA apparently initially awarded the applicant a 10 percent disability rating for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction of his left knee and a zero percent disability rating for residuals of his left thumb injury. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000512C070208
The applicant states that his migraines should have been rated. On 23 January 2002, after reevaluating all available medical records and sworn testimony by the applicant, a formal PEB found the applicant to be unfit for duty for the same conditions as the informal PEB found; also found several other diagnoses, to include his migraines, to be not unfitting and not rated; and also recommended he be separated with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. The VA Schedule for Rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022756
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. The MEB recommended referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). There is insufficient evidence to show the applicant's disability was improperly rated by the PEB or that his permanent disability retirement in 1978 was not in compliance with law and regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067535C070402
The MEB diagnosed him with left shoulder pain, status post left pectoralis major rupture and repair; left AC (acromio-clavicular) joint arthrosis; and sarcoidosis and referred him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). On 25 May 2000, a PEB found the applicant to be unfit for duty as a result of his diagnoses of left shoulder pain, status post left pectoralis major rupture and repair, rated as slight/intermittent, with a disability rating of zero percent. DISCUSSION : Considering all the...