Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059337C070421
Original file (2001059337C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 27 September 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001059337

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mrs. Nancy Amos Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. Chairperson
Mr. Eric N. Anderson Member
Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr. Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge with severance pay be changed to a disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES: That he understands that current legislation allows the Department of Defense to retire a member for disabilities rated 30 percent or higher by the VA shortly after discharge from the military. He provides his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, and his VA rating decision as supporting evidence.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant maintains that his disabilities were more disabling than found by the Army and that he should have been permanently retired due to his disabilities. Counsel opines that the applicant’s submission, in conjunction with the official Army records, amply advance his contentions and substantially reflect the probative facts needed for equitable review.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records are not available. Information contained herein was obtained from alternate sources.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 1995. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13M (Multiple Launch Rocket System Crewmember).

A Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary shows the applicant was evaluated for a complaint of low back pain that started with a motor vehicle accident in October 1996. X-rays ruled out spondylolysis. The X-rays are not available. A physical examination revealed his spine was straight with a decrease in lumbar lordosis and that his active range-of-motion was restricted in all planes of motion secondary to pain. The MEB recommended he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for a diagnosis of mechanical low back pain with aggravation by repetitive lifting and bending. On 23 March 2000, the applicant agreed with the MEB’s findings and recommendation.

On 11 May 2000, the PEB found the applicant unfit for duty by reason of mechanical low back pain with unremarkable radiographs and an unremarkable examination with no neurological deficits, VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 5003, with a 10 percent disability rating. On 19 May 2000, the applicant concurred in the PEB’s findings and recommendation and waived a formal hearing.

On 3 August 2000, the applicant was discharged by reason of a physical disability with severance pay.


On 28 December 2000, the VA awarded the applicant a combined disability rating of 50 percent for chronic low back pain with herniated disk at L4-5, with significant spondylolysis (40 percent) (VASRD code 5295) and hypertension (10 percent). The decision noted that the higher evaluation of 40 percent is warranted when the record shows lumbosacral strain with listing of the whole spine to the opposite side.

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 regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability. The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty. Paragraph B-24 states that often a soldier will be found unfit for any variety of diagnosed conditions which are rated essentially for pain. Rating by analogy to degenerative arthritis (VASRD code 5003) as an exception to analogous rating policies may be assigned in unusual cases with a 20 percent ceiling. Concerning VASRD code 5295, lumbosacral strain, when there are no objective medical findings of neurological involvement, lesser ratings will begin with a 0 percent rating for chronic low back pain of unknown etiology (mechanical low back pan). Demonstrable pain on spinal motion or discovery of back pain etiology will warrant a 10 percent rating.

The VASRD is the standard under which percentage rating decisions are to be made for disabled military personnel. The VASRD is primarily used as a guide for evaluating disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service. Once a soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD. These percentages are applied based on the severity of the condition.

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.

Public Law 106-65, dated 5 October 1999, added section 1413 to Title 10, U. S. Code. It provides special compensation ($100, $200, or $300 per month if the


qualifying service-connected disability is rated as 70 or 80 percent, 90 percent, or 100 percent, respectively) for certain severely disabled retirees. An eligible member is a retired member who is not retired for disability, is in a retired status, and has 20 or more years of service for purposes of computing retired pay. The law was later amended to provide this special compensation to delete the requirement to have not been retired for disability. The amendment takes effect on 1 October 2001 and shall apply to months that begin on or after that date. No benefit may be paid under this section to any person by reason of the amendment for any period before that date. The Board is not aware of any other legislation that allows a member to receive a medical retirement if he or she has disabilities rated at 30 percent or higher shortly after discharge.

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 in the Army rating. 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. The Board notes that neither the Army’s X-rays nor the VA’s X-rays are available to verify the condition of the applicant’s spine at each examination. However, a physical examination of the applicant’s spine by the Army found that his spine was straight. No listing of the whole spine to the opposite side was noted. Therefore, the Army’s rating of 10 percent for mechanical low back pain appears to be proper.

4. The applicant does not provide details of the current legislation he contends would allow him to be medically retired and, at his current VA rating of 50 percent, he does not meet the criteria of Public Law 106-65 as amended.

5. 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

__rvo___ __ena___ __teo___ DENY APPLICATION



                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records



INDEX

CASE ID AR2001059337
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20010927
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION (DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 108.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00794

    Original file (PD2011-00794.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    June 2004 x-rays revealed bilateral spondylosis of the L5 spine; however, a November 2004 bone scan did not detect any anomalies of the lumbar spine; orthopedic services opined that surgery was not indicated. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a separation rating of 10% for the chronic LBP condition coded 5237 without the addition of radiculopathy. No other conditions were service-connected with a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00997

    Original file (PD2011-00997.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01181

    Original file (PD2012-01181.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY SEPARATION DATE: 20021117 NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE NUMBER: PD1201181 BOARD DATE: 20130111 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty PFC/E-3 (92A10/Automated Logistical Specialist), medically separated for chronic mechanical low back pain (LBP). (2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01372

    Original file (PD2012 01372.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I never got any rating for my right knee. The VA has rated me for right, left knee, back & depression.” Spondylolysis, L5, Bilateral, Symptomatic .The 2002 VASRD coding and rating standards for the spine, which were in effect at the time of separation, were changed to the current §4.71a rating standards on 26 September 2003, and were identical to the interim VASRD standards used by the VA in its rating decision.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058681C070421

    Original file (2001058681C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 March 2000 he provided a rebuttal, requesting a reevaluation of his left knee, and stating that his knee or his range of motion would never be the same again as a result of his injuries. The ensuing PEB did award him a 10 percent rating for his left knee pain, and awarded him a zero percent rating for his low back pain and his neck pain. The medical evidence of record supports the determination that the applicant's unfitting condition was properly diagnosed and rated at the time of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054605C070420

    Original file (2001054605C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s formal PEB convened on 24 May 2000 and concluded the applicant was unfit for continued military service because of “chronic neck and back pain and polyarthralgias status post L4-5 laminectomy and L4-5 and L5-S1 interbody fusion.” The formal board noted the applicant “has constant severe pain which disrupts sleep and required frequent use of narcotic pain medications.” The formal PEB recommended a disability rating of 20 percent in accordance with the U.S. Army Physical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021047

    Original file (20120021047.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: I believe the narrative discharge of "disability existed prior to service," item 28 of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release from Active Duty)) is incorrect because of the lack of evidence and the presence of contradicting evidence at the time of the rating from the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). Studies have shown that 5-10 percent of patients seeing a spine specialist for low back pain will have either a spondylolysis or isthmic spondylolisthesis. The PEB did...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017035

    Original file (20140017035.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) with eleven pages of associated documents * DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) with four pages of associated documents * Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), undated, showing results of a medical evaluation board/separation physical examination * clinical notes, undated, by the Chief,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007607

    Original file (20080007607.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This examination conflicts with the MEB examination regarding the measurements of the applicant's range of motion, diagnosis, as well as reporting of muscle spasms and tenderness to touch which was not present in August 2004. It appears that the DVA based its rating of the applicant's back condition on the September 2004 civilian examination and rated his back as being 40 percent disabling because his forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine was 30 degrees or less. However, the DVA's...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01339

    Original file (PD-2014-01339.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Low Back Pain ... (Subuming Spondylolysis/Spondylosisthesis)523920%Lumbar Spine Spondylolysis ... (Subsuming Bilateral Radiculopathy)523920%20091228Other x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 0 RATING: 20%RATING: 20%...