| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by showing that he reenlisted as an infantryman in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B for a $20,0000.00 reenlistment bonus, was promoted to pay grade E-5 and was separated due to physical disability retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the dates shown on the Board’s original memorandum of consideration (MOC) were wrong and that, if the chronology was wrong, the determination was erroneous. He contends that his command was entirely to blame for his not attending the MOS 68Q school that he enlisted for and that, since he did not enter the disability system until after he had missed his chance at this new MOS, he should be awarded a bonus for re-enlisting as an infantryman. He was promotable as an infantryman and if he had enlisted in MOS 11B he would have been separated in pay grade E-5. He submits copies of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) evaluations and ratings.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in an MOC prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR200003997) on 7 November 2000.
The applicant’s contentions are new argument that requires Board consideration.
There is no available evidence to show that the applicant was eligible to reenlist for a $20,000.00 bonus as an infantryman or that he was promotable in that MOS.
There are no identifiable incorrect dates in the MOC and the applicant did not specify what dates he believed to be incorrect,
Subsequent to the June 1993 separation the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided the applicant with service-connected disability rating of 10 percent for the left knee from 26 September 1995, 10 percent for the left shoulder from 26 September 1995, zero percent for both ankles and a broken nose and denied his claim for headaches as not well founded.
On 25 February 2000 the VA increased the rating on both ankles to 10 percent from 27 June 1997
On 3 February 2001 the VA denied the applicant’s request for total disability, denied an increase in the zero rating for the broken nose, denied service-connection for headaches, pain from an undiagnosed illness, gastroesophageal reflux and liver abnormalities.
Title 38, United States 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.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
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 applicant did not specify what dates were wrong nor did he explain how any mistake in chronology could have effected the outcome of the case. He was separated for physical disability with severance pay because his disability was not severe enough to qualify for disability retirement.
2. The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency. It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Department of the Army purposes.
3. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2001057941 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011025 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00517
He was working in his rating, and his commander recommended retention; however, the CI underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The CI’s application asserts that compensable ratings should be considered for broken nose and surgery, broken left hand (status post flexion contracture release of the left fifth digit) with arthritis and constant pain, back condition, left knee condition, right foot condition, right and left achilles condition, and right hip condition. Exhibit C. Department...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009962
The applicant requests correction of her military records to show she was retired due to physical disability. The applicant contends her military records should be corrected to show she was retired due to physical disability because the VA has increased her service connected physical disability (for which she was separated from the Army) rating from 10 to 50 percent disabling. The available evidence shows the applicant was evaluated by a PEB while on active duty and found unfit for duty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013796
Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows he had physical profiles for his injuries while serving on active duty. Furthermore, evidence of record shows the applicant reenlisted in the USAR in October 1995 and May 2002 which is a further indication that he was not medically...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018505
As such, the PEB did not rate those conditions. Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 7-2, provides that an individual may be placed on the TDRL (for the maximum period of 5 years which is allowed by Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1210) when it is determined that the individuals physical disability is not stable and he or she may recover and be fit for duty, or the individuals disability is not stable and the degree of severity may change within the next 5 years so as to change the disability...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068241C070402
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 VA, however, is not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074935C070403
• Probative value of MEB, physical examinations and reports in a disability determination by the PEB and the ABCMR. The MOC, on page 6, notes that the ARBA medical advisor provided an AO; however, neither the AO nor the ABCMR MOC, discuss the overall effect of all, or some, of his ailments on his ability to perform his duties; pain as an unfitting condition; his VA and Army medical records; the postretirement report of examinations in the appeal that conflicted with Army MEB diagnoses, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015348
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent. c. Title 10, U.S. 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. Even though he states he has received a 120 percent disability rating by the VA, the award of VA compensation does not mandate disability...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00025
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The PEB requested a psychiatric evaluation due to reference in the MEB and medical records of anxiety disorder NOS and PTSD.The NARSUM psychiatric addendum dated 19 July 2001 notedthe CI’s episodic anxiety was due to...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00424
Hip Condition . In the matter of the hip condition, the Board unanimously recommends permanent separation rating of 10% for each hip, coded 5299-5255 IAW VASRD §4.40, §4.45, §4.59, and §4.71a. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of permanent disability retirement effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012453
Further, counsel submits an additional request to have the applicant placed on the Temporary Retired Disability List (TDRL) for evaluation under the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) if he cannot be medically retired. The progress notes show he sustained a mild brain injury on 3 April 2003 with residual vertigo, headaches, memory, and cognitive deficits. The applicant has not provided any medical documents, other than the VA disabilities ratings, which show he was treated on...