| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records to show that he was retired by reason of physical disability rather than merely separated with entitlement to severance pay.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he is not asking for disability retirement for himself, but rather he is asking for his life, his wife’s hardship, and for his three children. He reiterates, as he did in original application, that his career and dreams were derailed because of another soldier’s actions and he does not understand “why after all these years the Army have [sic] not compensated [him] and [his] family.” In support of his request he submits copies of his December 2000 disability rating decision from the VA, implying that the VA rating justifies increasing his Army disability rating.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 10 October 2001 (AR2001057413). The applicant’s submission of his VA disability rating decision was considered a new argument that required Board consideration.
The applicant was discharged on 17 May 1983 by reason of a physical disability (trochanter bursitis, right hip) rated at 10 percent by the Army.
The VA document submitted by the applicant appears to indicate that his right hip condition, manifested by limitation of flexion, was at one time rated by the VA at 10 percent and increased to 30 percent effective 11 August 1999, more than 10 years after his separation from active duty. The applicant also had a 10 percent rating from the VA for “overuse syndrome of the left hip, manifested by limitation of flexion” which was subsequently increased to 20 percent in June 2000. Although it is unclear what the VA’s original level of compensation was for the applicant’s right hip condition, the available VA document does note that the applicant’s “service connection for trochanteric bursitis of the right hip was granted by a rating dated 6/7/83” and that the applicant “filed for an increased rating on 12/5/96.”
The VA document also indicated that the applicant was granted service connected disability ratings of 10 percent for “avascular necrosis and bursitis of the right hip, manifested by limitation of adduction and internal rotation” and for
“overuse syndrome of the left hip, manifested by limitation of internal rotation.” He also was granted “entitlement to individual unemployability.” The ratings were effective 8 June 2000.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the Army rating. An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service. 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 were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's employability. Accordingly, it is not unusual for the two agencies of the Government, operating under different policies, to arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment. Furthermore, unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.
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 has considered the applicant’s contention that because the VA has rated his service connected disabilities at a higher rate than the Army’s original rating, the Army should increase its rating in order to permit the applicant to be medically retired, retroactive to his 1983 discharge action. However, the Board notes that a rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army rating. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit. Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.
2. 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.
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.
NOTE:
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__AAO__ __MHM__ __KAH __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064266 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020129 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00788
In an addendum to the MEB dated August, 2001 approximately 8 months prior to separation, the physician who performed the last surgery, stated that on his exam done about 11 months prior to separation, the CI had mild impingement and “near full range-of-motion of the right shoulder”and no pain, although she reported “activity-related subacromial bursitis type symptoms with aching.”The physical exam at the time of the addendum by the orthopedic provider, documented ROM as flexion to 90...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00190
The Board must apply separate codes and ratings in its recommendations if compensable ratings for each condition are achieved IAW VASRD §4.71a. An orthopedic examination three and one half months prior to separation, noted that she had “subjective” pain, and documented an essentially normal exam. As previously elaborated, the Board must first consider whether the left or right hip pain condition remained separately unfitting, having de-coupled it from a combined PEB adjudication.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00692
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the left hip and lower extremity pain condition as unfitting, rated 0% with likely application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam prior to separation, the CI reported pain in her low back that radiated into her buttocks which had been diagnosed as left ischial tuberosity syndrome. However, the Board notes the evidence supports primarily left hip exam findings to...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01541
RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20040617VA -Based on Service Treatment Records(STR)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Low Back Pain Secondary to EPTS Injury, Permanently Service Aggravated 523710%Low Back Pain524310%STRLeft Lower Extremity Radiculopathy Associated with Low Back Pain852010%STRChronic Left Hip Pain50190%Left Hip Trochanteric Bursitis5019-52520%STROther x 6 (Not in Scope)Other x 4 Combined: 10%Combined: 20%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01681
The neuropsychological report dated 12 April 2004, 3 months prior to separation, reported the CI had concentration and memory problems and mild headaches about twice a week. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 10% for the left hip condition only.Members agreed that based on the evidence, the right hip pain was not separately unfitting. In the matter of the left hip condition, the...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00421
Right Hip Condition . It may be safely concluded that the VA C&P exam findings (reflecting the response to surgery) were more probative to the impairment at separation than was the pre-operative MEB exam; and, that the intermittent symptoms and normal findings recorded in that exam were correctly rated 0% by the VA. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a separation rating of 0% for the right wrist...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00090
Complaints of right shoulder pain, back pain, and knee pain were noted, but not ankle pain. At the MEB examination, the examiner recorded no limitation in ROM and normal strength of the right shoulder. It was noted that PT was beneficial and that the second C&P documented essentially normal ROM for the hip.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00919
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. Hip X-rays were reported as “within normal.” According to the NARSUM the CI did not have PT for the back pain, but she had been treated with multiple medications including anti-inflammatory medication, pain...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01221
Post‐Sep (20030107) Full Full Normal gait, silent to painful motion 0% §4.71a Rating 0% At the MEB exam, the CI reported pain in her left shoulder and left hip that prevented her from performing her duties. The VA assigned the left hip a 10% rating for pain to palpation which is inconsistent with the VASRD §4.59 which is for painful motion. In the matter of the left shoulder condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 10%, coded 5304‐5003 IAW VASRD §4.71a.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00635
Groin Pain Condition. In the matter of the bilateral hip condition, the Board unanimously recommends that each joint be rated as separately unfitting at 10%, coded 5019, IAW VASRD §4.71a. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX President Physical Disability Board of Review SFMR-RB MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency (TAPD-ZB / ), 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22202-3557 SUBJECT:...