| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. James E. Vick | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be changed to a medical retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was released from active duty on 23 July 1999 and entered the Army National Guard. He had symptoms of diabetes while on active duty. He was treated in November 1999 for diabetes and it was so severe that he was recommended as medically unfit for retention. His medical board process was started in December 1999. The VA originally awarded him a 20 percent disability rating. After he appealed, it was raised to 40 percent effective 24 July 1999. Supporting evidence is as listed on the continuation to the DD Form 149.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel makes no additional contention.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records are not available. The information contained herein was obtained from alternate sources.
The applicant completed his enlistment physical on 23 August 1995 and apparently enlisted in the Regular Army in July 1996.
The applicant completed a separation physical on 30 April 1999 and was found qualified for separation. He apparently was released from active duty in July 1999.
The applicant apparently enlisted in the Army National Guard in July 1999.
On 4 November 1999, the applicant was admitted to the local civilian hospital with chief symptoms of extreme light-headedness, nausea without vomiting, and weight loss. He was discharged on 9 November 1999 with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus with ketoacidosis type I, uncontrolled and complication of volume depletion disorder secondary to his diabetes.
On 9 December 1999, a Medical Duty Review Board was requested to determine the applicant’s fitness for duty. He had provided documentation showing that he was insulin dependent.
Apparently, a Medical Duty Review Board was held on 5 March 2000 and found the applicant unfit for duty. On an unknown date, he was discharged from the Army National Guard.
On 14 April 2000, the VA granted the applicant a 20 percent disability rating for diabetes. On 8 May 2000, the rating was increased to 40 percent.
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 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. When a soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement, creates a presumption that a soldier is fit. The presumption is rebuttable and is overcome when the preponderance of evidence establishes the soldier was physically unable to perform adequately the duties of his or her office, grade or rank.
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. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.
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 is empathetic with the applicant’s medical problems; however, there is no evidence to show that he was ever unfit for duty while he was in the Regular Army. His active duty records are not available. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that he was able to continue to perform his assigned duties until the day he was released from active duty. His Army National Guard records are not available and he provides insufficient evidence to show his discharge from the Guard was improper.
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.
3. 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
__jev___ __bje___ __wdb___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057494 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010821 |
| 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 | CY2001 | 2001063348C070421
On 1 October 1999, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for duty by reason of having insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 7913), under good control, with no restrictions in aerobic activity but requiring a restricted diet. 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 evidence of record shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086697C070212
On 18 October 1999, an informal PEB found the applicant to be physically unfit under VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 7913 for his diagnosis of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, Type II, under fair control, with a 20 percent disability rating. On 3 December 1999, a formal PEB found the applicant to be physically unfit for his diagnosis of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, Type II, under fair control with a 20 percent disability rating. Also, the VA may rate one...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098272C070212
If his condition was severe enough for the VA to grant him a 30 percent disability rating, then he should have received a medical discharge from the Army. On 30 August 2000 the VA notified the applicant that his optic neuritis to his left eye was service connected with a 30 percent disability rating. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012671
The PEB also determined that his condition of a mood disorder was not unfitting and recommended that the applicant be granted permanent retirement with a 40% disability rating. Based on the available evidence, it appears the applicant's disability was properly rated in accordance with the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities by competent medical authorities and his retirement with a 40% disability rating was in compliance with laws and regulations in effect at the time. Department of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008770
The MEB proceedings do not show a recommendation or any other entries by Army officials; f. a DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) that shows a PEB convened on 17 April 2007 to evaluate the applicant's type II diabetes, well controlled on oral agents: (1) the board found the applicant fit for duty and returned him to duty, and (2) the applicant concurred with the PEB findings and recommendations on 19 April 2007; g. a VA Rating Decision, dated 3 May 2008, that shows the following decisions were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057445C070420
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057266C070420
APPLICANT STATES : That his records show that he did have a disability and that he should have been medically discharged. A medical report prepared at the Army hospital at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, shows that the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 14 January 1988 after being examined for possible medical board evaluation because of complaints of neck and back pain since 14 June 1987 [the date of the automobile accident]. On 6 July 1993 the applicant was discharged from the Army Reserve.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091742C070212
A 3 November 2000 Report of Medical History showed she had indicated she had been raped by the first sergeant, that she had surgery on her foot in April 2000, and that she had spent time in a mental ward at a hospital in September 2000 and was treated for depression. 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. However, the evidence of record shows the applicant stated in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03096353C070212
His report of physical examination should have been forwarded to a medical review board for a determination. On 4 August 2003 the Army Reserve Personnel Command surgeon notified the applicant that his medical records revealed that his diabetes mellitus and bilateral knee arthritis disqualified him for retention in the Army Reserve. Notwithstanding the applicant's contention and the VA decision concerning his service-connected disabilities, there is no medical evidence to show that 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...