| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Disability retirement in lieu of disability separation.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he received a VA disability rating for "depression" which was not addressed in his Army disability rating. He notes that the VA rated his eye condition at 20 percent and he received a 50 percent rating for anxiety/depression. In support of his request he submits a copy of his October 2001 VA rating action.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty, for a period of 4 years, in November 1996 after serving several years in the Army National Guard.
In July 2000 the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). His chief complaint was listed as "chronic pain in the left eye, status post scleral buckle procedure in 1997."
The MEB summary noted that the applicant had a "history of blunt trauma to the left eye, at age 8" but was determined to be medically qualified for enlistment despite his decreased visual acuity and afferent pupillary defect. In May 1997 he sustained another blunt trauma to his left eye when the "starter cord of a lawn mower" hit him.
As a result of the injury the applicant underwent a "scleral buckle procedure of the left eye" in June 1997. The applicant subsequently developed chronic intermittent frontal headaches, chronic photophobia, chronic intermittent throbbing of the left eye, and "bothersome ghost images." The MEB summary notes the applicant's symptoms were unresponsive to both oral and topical treatments and in February 2000 it was determined that his symptoms were secondary to significant anisometropia and aniseikonia (a difference in the refractive power of two eyes and a condition in which the ocular image of an object as seen by one eye differs in size and shape from that seen by the other). Attempts to treat the applicant with a special contact lens were not successful and the applicant's symptoms did not improve. The MEB recommended the applicant be referred to a PEB (Physical Evaluation Board). The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.
On 12 September 2000 an informal PEB concluded the applicant's eye condition prevented the reasonable performance of duties required by grade and military specialty and recommended the applicant be separated with a 10 percent disability rating. The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived his right to a formal hearing.
On 6 December 2000 the applicant was discharged by reason of his physical disability and received more than $15,000.00 in disability severance pay.
Subsequent to the applicant's separation, in October 2001, the VA granted him a disability rating of 30 percent for "anxiety disorder with depressive features" and a 20 percent rating for "status post-retinal detachment, left eye, with associated headaches."
Title 10, United States 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.
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.
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 applicant's disability processing and separation with severance pay was in compliance with law and regulation.
2. The Board notes that the applicant's chief complaint during his MEB was chronic pain in his left eye. There is no indication in available records that the applicant's "anxiety disorder with depressive features," which was rated by the VA, affected his ability to perform his military duties. The applicant, who would have been familiar with his medical ailments at the time of the MEB and PEB, concurred with the findings of both and provides no evidence that he ever raised the issue during his disability processing.
3. The fact that the VA's rating of the applicant's eye condition was higher than the Army's rating does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army's 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.
4. 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 that requirement.
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__ __RWA__ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067037 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020620 |
| 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 | CY2009 | PD2009-00145
Discussion: The CI was diagnosed with PTSD and was found unfit for PTSD at 10%. VARD (diagnosed as Tinnitus) 20080516 and rated it at 10% based on exam of 20080107: The condition is noted in your service treatment records as of May 3, 2007; We have assigned a 10 percent evaluation based on examination findings that has determined, your tinnitus is persistent in nature; the diagnosis that has been given is ringing in the left ear. There is no hearing loss present on the right and there is...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01290
Asthma Condition . The treatment regimens documented in the NARSUM and VA C&P exam both included either daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy, or; inhalational anti-inflammatory medication in addition to intermittent and rescue medications. Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01564
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY CASE NUMBER: PD1201564 SEPARATION DATE: 20040823 BOARD DATE: 20130322 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty Soldier, SPC/E-4(31B, Military Policeman), medically separated for panic disorder without agoraphobia. The conditions of PTSD; functional bowel disorder; recurrent upper and lower back...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01221
CI CONTENTION : CI states “Please review all addendums from PEB and MEB.” She lists 8 exhibits in her contention summarized as right foot, asthma, left knee, chronic pain syndrome and depression and a component of fibromyalgia syndrome with her VA ratings. Although the pain in the knee was adjudged as not being “painful motion,” this was considered as a pain symptom under the CI’s primary unfitting fibromyalgia condition. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00526
Post‐Separation*) – All Effective Date 20021210 Condition Service IPEB – Dated 20020716 Condition Delusional Disorder Right Elbow Pain Chronic Left Ankle Pain 5099‐5003 5099‐5003 Code 9208 ↓No Addi(cid:415)onal MEB/PEB Entries↓ Rating 0% 0% 0% Combined: 0% Code 9203 Delusional Disorder Right Ulnar Neuropathy Left Achilles Tendonitis 8599‐8516 5299‐5284 0% X 0 / Not Service‐Connected x 1 Combined: 80% Rating 70% 10% 10% Exam 20050620 20040601 20040601 20040601 *Delusional disorder first rated...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00551
In 1999, the CI was referred for MEB due to chronic back pain, and he experienced increased symptoms of depression due to worry about his ability to remain in the U.S. and care for his family since he was not yet a U.S. citizen. VA C&P examinations therefore would be expected to be performed in a manner that would report examination findings consistent with the rating guidelines, in this case a lumbar range of motion rather than the combined thoracolumbar ROM that is measured and used under...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00988
SAFPC, on 27 May 2008, found only the low back pain condition unfitting with a 10% rating, coded 5242. The Board noted that the profiles do not specify limitations based on ankle pain versus low back pain. After careful consideration of your application and treatment records, the Physical Disability Board of Review determined that the rating assigned at the time of final disposition of your disability evaluation system processing was appropriate.
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00129
Left Foot Condition . There were several diagnoses that may have contributed to the CI’s left foot pain, and the Board considered the total disability of the left foot in its rating recommendation. The DES file, service treatment record, post-separation VA C&P exams, VA outpatient treatment records, and VA contact reports provided evidence of physical (headache, nausea, vomiting, sleep disturbance, balance disorder), cognitive (memory, concentration, speed of processing), and possibly...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00293
The informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated the mood disorder (major depression, without psychotic features) due to multiple medical conditions as the single unfitting condition, rated 10%; with application of the SECNAVINST 1850.4E and DoDI 1332.39. The Veterans’ Affairs (VA), however, can rate and compensate all service connected conditions without regard to their impact on performance of military duties, including conditions developing after separation that are direct complications of a service...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00515
The back, wrist and chest conditions, characterized as “chronic low back pain,”“right radial wrist pain status post radial artery ligation” and “chronic anterior chest wall pain secondary to atrial septal defect repair,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.The MEB also identified and forwarded four other conditions (right patellar tendinitis, migraine without aura, conductive and sensorineural hearing loss and decreased night vision in the right eye), as well...