Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064272C070421
Original file (2001064272C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 28 February 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001064272

         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
Ms. Celia L. Adolphi Member
Mr. John T. Meixell 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 be changed to a physical disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was offered neither severance pay nor retirement regarding his service-connected disabilities. His service medical records show numerous complaints of chest, back, and neck pains. They show he suffered several falls on his upper back in 1972, a vehicle accident in 1976, and a lower back injury with physical therapy sessions in 1981 prior to his discharge. He is currently rated as 100 percent disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He provides copies of his service medical records, his VA medical records, a 6 January 2000 letter from the VA certifying he has a service-connected disability evaluated at 100 percent, a copy of his VA-status military identification card, and his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, as supporting evidence.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 December 1968 and had continuous service until his separation.

The applicant’s service medical records confirm that he was treated numerous times for complaints of chest, back, and neck pain.

The applicant completed the Primary Leadership Course on 11 May 1979. His Senior Enlisted Evaluation Report (SEER) for the period ending July 1980 shows he was rated as “ranks with the very best” in the category of “Is physically fit, as required, for MOS/grade (Physical Condition).” Comments included “…is a highly qualified NCO who has the potential to complete any mission assigned…” and “…personal appearance and physical condition serve as an example for others to strive for.” His SEER for the period ending July 1981 shows he was rated as “ranks with the very best” in the category of “Is physically fit, as required, for MOS/grade (Physical Condition).” Comments were mostly negative but were related to his ineffectiveness as a noncommissioned officer and his inability to separate his marital problems from his duty requirements rather than an inability to perform due to medical problems.

On 30 July 1981, the applicant was discharged upon the completion of his required service.

On 5 September 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG). He completed a statement in lieu of current medical examination. He indicated that he had been treated for lower back (problems) from March 1984 to the present but he believed that he was now medically qualified to perform satisfactory military service.

On 26 February 1986, the applicant requested separation from the ARNG. He cited idleness, pay problems, and problems with his rank as the reasons for his request. On 25 April 1986, the applicant was discharged from the ARNG with an honorable characterization of service.

On 10 July 1992, the applicant was seen by the VA for the purpose of a compensation and pension examination. It was noted at this time that he had no rated disabilities on file. A VA consultation progress note dated 2 May 1997 indicated the applicant had a 40 percent service-connected disability rating and apparently was being considered for a 20 percent increase. On an unknown date, the VA increased his disability rating to 100 percent.

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.

The VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (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. Unlike the VA, the Army must first determine whether or not a soldier is fit to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating. Once a soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD.

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.

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 on the part of the Army. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, 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 rated as disabling by the VA even though he was determined to be physically fit by the Army.

3. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was physically fit to perform his duties at the time of his separation from active duty. Although he was being treated for a back condition at the time he enlisted in the ARNG, he had indicated that he believed that he was medically qualified to perform satisfactory military service. He requested discharge from the ARNG two years later but his request did not indicate that he believed himself to be physically unfit for duty. On the contrary, one of the reasons he requested discharge was his idleness.

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

__rvo___ __cla___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION



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




INDEX

CASE ID AR2001064272
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20020228
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

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004894C070208

    Original file (20040004894C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of fitness rule in his case. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 22 August 1981; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 21...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509653C070209

    Original file (9509653C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his retirement for years of service be corrected to a medical retirement. During that rating period he had been performing duties in his primary MOS of chemical specialist. A 10 percent disability does not warrant a medical retirement from the Army.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003708

    Original file (20140003708.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on a review of the medical evidence of record, applicant's testimony, and presentation by his counsel, the formal PEB concluded that the findings and recommendations of the informal PEB are appropriate as stated in paragraph 2-1 of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The applicant's...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003708

    Original file (20140003708 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on a review of the medical evidence of record, applicant's testimony, and presentation by his counsel, the formal PEB concluded that the findings and recommendations of the informal PEB are appropriate as stated in paragraph 2-1 of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The applicant's...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082322C070215

    Original file (2002082322C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PDA concluded that the applicant should have had a fitness for duty PEB before he was medically separated from the ARNGUS and a PEB held in 1998 would have most likely found the applicant unfit for duty because of this back pain and rated at 20 percent, under VASRD Code 5293, and separated with severance pay. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022117

    Original file (20120022117.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 8 October 2005 to show he was medically retired vice honorably released from active duty by reason of completion of his required active service. The PEB found the applicant's conditions prevented him from performing the duties required of his grade and military specialty and determined that he was physically unfit due...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012513

    Original file (20070012513.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The WAARNG either mistakenly processed the applicant through this channel, not connecting the fact that his neck condition might have been related to the June 1998 and March 2000 injuries, or deliberately processed him through this channel because there was no line of duty determination on his June 1998 and March 2000 injuries. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019126

    Original file (20080019126.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was rated under the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and was granted a 10 percent disability rating for code 5241 (chronic low back pain), a 10 percent disability rating for codes 5099 and 5003 (chronic pain of the left shoulder and left knee), and a 10 percent disability rating for codes 5030 and 5261 (flexion contracture of the right knee). Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation),...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001289

    Original file (20080001289.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD. Although the applicant contends that his medical conditions were not properly considered by the medical board and that he was not given adequate time to provide medical information to the board from his doctors but was discharged, he has not provided any evidence to show his medical conditions were not properly considered. Although the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000012

    Original file (20120000012.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's service records including his personnel and medical records are not available for review with this case. The applicant was medically separated from the PRARNG in 2004 and placed on the retired list. A Soldier who suffers an injury or an illness while on active duty is retained in the service until he or she has attained maximum hospital benefits and completion of disability evaluation if otherwise eligible for referral into the disability system.