| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his active duty retirement be changed to a medical retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: That the VA has given him a combined rated of 90 percent for conditions that existed prior to his discharge. The VA rating decision clearly states that these medical conditions existed at the time of the physical examination that was conducted at his retirement. He feels it was an injustice that the officer who conducted the retirement examination did not tell him about these conditions so he could not demand a hearing for a physical disability separation.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 July 1974.
On 18 December 1986, the applicant was given a permanent L2 profile for status post fracture of the left femur, left tibia, and left fibula, degenerative arthritis of the left ankle, and left leg shortening due to trauma. He was given limitations of no running over one mile at own pace and distance and he could bicycle or walk for alternate Army Physical Readiness Test standards and fitness.
The applicant requested retirement on 7 March 1995. His request was approved on 12 April 1995. His Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2A, dated 19 April 1995 showed that he still had only a permanent L2 profile. He retired on 1 August 1995 after completing 21 years of creditable active.
On 3 October 1997, the VA awarded the applicant compensation for hypertensive heart disease with essential arterial hypertension (60 percent); residuals of a fracture of the left femur with shortening of the leg and arthritis of the left knee (30 percent); residuals of a fracture of the left lower leg with arthritis of the ankle (10 percent); arthritis of the right and left hip (10 percent each); and reactively triggered depression (50 percent). He was awarded increased compensation for arthritis lumbosacral spine with intervertebral disc syndrome (40 percent) and post-operative cervical fusion with radiculopathy of the right arm (40 percent). He was given a combined evaluation of 90 percent as of 1 September 1995 and 100 percent as of 1 April 1997.
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. Application of the rule does not mandate a finding of 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. 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 Board notes that the applicant never received more than a permanent L2 profile and relatively minor duty limitations. There is no indication that he was ever unable to perform his military duties. Since there is no evidence to show that he was medically unfit to perform his military duties, the Presumption of Fitness rule has not been overcome.
3. 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 considered insufficient to render him medically unfit for duty and yet be rated by the VA.
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
__fne___ __slp___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058306 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010717 |
| 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 | 2004103221C070208
The Rating Decision noted that a 40 percent rating (for the applicant's hip condition) was granted because the physical examination showed he could flex his hip only 10 degrees. It is also noted that the Army rated the applicant's knee condition in May 1994 at 10 percent whereas the VA, even after his numerous complaints of knee problems after the PEB, initially awarded a zero percent rating for his knee condition. There is no evidence that the applicant's ankle condition or injury to his...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00807
The Board agreed the TDRL rating recommendation would be based from the MEB evidence and the post-TDRL recommendation would be based from the VA evidence. The Board agreed the TDRL rating recommendation would be based from the MEB evidence and the permanent rating recommendation would be based from the VA evidence. In the matter of the left femur fracture condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 10% at the time of TDRL placement and at permanent separation coded...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01627
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The VA cited mal-union of the femur with moderate knee disability for its 20% rating.Members first agreed that measured ROMs were non-compensable and that sufficient evidence of painful motion was present to justify the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03096854C070212
The applicant requests physical disability retirement with a disability rating of 100 percent. A 30 August 1999 report of medical examination depicts the applicant's various medical conditions, to include bilateral weakness in arms/forearms, degenerative joint disease to his back, knees, and ankles, and bilateral ankle pain. The applicant had pain to his back, knee, right ankle, and left wrist, as a result of his various injuries; consequently, the PEB determined that he be rated as 20...
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...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00790
Left Thigh Muscle Condition . All members agreed that the thigh muscle injury and open comminuted fracture of the femur with IM rod and nails was an integral part of the CI’s injury and disability that rendered the CI incapable of continued service within his MOS; and, accordingly merits a separate service rating. Painful Thigh Scars Condition .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066882C070402
He provides a VA Rating Decision showing the correct codes and that he is presently rated at 40 percent disabled. On 18 November 1999, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for duty for a diagnosis of bilateral leg pain secondary to stress fractures, rated as slight/frequent, VASRD codes 5299 and 5003, with a 10 percent disability rating. Evidence showed there was no restricted motion in the left knee due to a tibia injury.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002069
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 evidence of record supports the applicant's contention that he did not receive any disability rating for his Vietnam combat injuries to his left shoulder, left index finger, and fragment wounds to his right hip. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individuals medical condition may not be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004652
The applicant requests his military records be changed to show he was placed on the Retired List for physical unfitness rated 100 percent disabled. On 14 February 2005, the applicant's case was considered by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) while he was on the TDRL. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00718
The InformalPEB (IPEB) adjudicated the left hip pain as unfitting, rated 10%, with cited application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The remaining (right) leg pain condition was determined to be CategoryII (conditions that contribute to the unfitting condition).The CI made no appeals and was medically separatedwith a 10% disability rating. Under any appropriate VASRD code, the disability evaluation would result in a 10% rating as granted by the PEB. ...