| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for a physical disability retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: That in order to be removed from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) a medical examination must be given. None was given to him prior to reducing his rate to 10 percent and removing him from the TDRL. As supporting evidence he provides two pages from his 15 April 1997 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) appeal in which the Board of Veterans’ Appeals opined that he ought to be given another opportunity to report for a neurological examination, one page from a VA rating decision dated 18 February 1998, and a skull x-ray.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in proceedings prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 9 September 1992 (docket number AC91-06431) and in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board’s reconsideration of his case on 7 October 1999 (docket number AR1998014148).
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. Chapter 7 states that the medical treatment facility (MTF) commander is responsible for periodically re-examining a soldier on the TDRL. It further states that the MTF commander will arrange to have the portions of the examination that cannot be accomplished at the Army MTF conducted at one of three other locations: (1) another uniformed service MTF; (2) other Federal medical facility at, or near, the soldier’s home; or (3) civilian – operated clinic or hospital at, or near, the soldier’s home.
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. A TDRL re-examination need not be conducted at a military MTF. Considering the circumstances of the applicant’s placement on the TDRL as a result of Board action in 1992, the use of the VA’s 25 May 1989 examination (i.e., another Federal medical facility) granting him a 10 percent disability rating for an organic affective disorder with generalized anxiety, competent, to determine he was unfit for duty with a 10 percent disability rating effective the date he normally would have received his TDRL re-examination in December 1989 was appropriate.
2. The 15 April 1997 Board of Veterans’ Appeals document which opined that the applicant ought to be given another opportunity to report for a neurological examination concerned the status of his condition in 1997, not his condition at the time he separated in 1988 or at the time of his “TDRL re-examination” in 1989.
3. 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.
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
__JL____ __GDP___ __CG____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067285 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020425 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001054
The PEB rated him at 10 percent under VASRD 9421, somatization disorder, for use of medications to control the symptoms of that particular diagnosed condition. Evidence of record shows the military only found one psychiatric condition to be present and unfitting when he was placed on the TDRL (conversion disorder) and he agreed with the initial diagnosis and rating of that condition. There is insufficient evidence to show the applicants PEB disability ratings are incorrect or that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021048
On 23 July 2014, the Board denied the applicant's request and determined there should be no change to his record as the PEB appropriately granted a TDRL entry rating of 50% for PTSD. The advisory official recommended approval of the applicant's request that his records be corrected to show a disability retirement in 2010. In a response to the advisory opinion, dated 21 April 2015, the applicant stated he was in total agreement with the USAPDA recommendations and requests placement on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063506C070421
On 4 January 1996, the applicant underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB). On 16 April 1996, an informal PEB found the applicant to be physically unfit due to probable acute zonal occult outer retinopathy with suspected glaucoma, strabismus, and facial neuralgia, Veterans Affairs Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 6099 (diseases of the eye, unlisted conditions), 6006 (retinitis), and 6078 (impairment of central visual acuity, vision in one eye 20/100). On 30 October 2001, a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015199
As a result, the PEB recommended a disability rating of 30 percent for this condition. As a result, the PEB recommended a disability rating of 10 percent for this condition. 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 retired or separated.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106310C070208
If, at the time of that determination, the physical disability for which the member's name was carried on the TDRL still exists, it shall be considered to be of a permanent nature and stable. Therefore, it would be equitable to correct his records to show he was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired by reason of physical disability effective 28 May 1998 with a 40 percent disability rating. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002079
In summary, the applicant states: a. that in 1993 and 1994, while on active duty, he suffered a generalized seizure, two grand mal seizures, and two strokes with hemorrhage; b. that Army personnel initially dismissed his symptoms; c. that his family, including his brother who is a medical doctor, took him to private medical doctors who addressed his symptoms and had him transferred to Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC); d. that the supervising doctor at WRAMC was unable to diagnose the...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01478
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. The Board therefore, with due consideration of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), recommends no change in the TDRL placement rating.The Board then turned to deliberation of a fair rating recommendation at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001670
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show that he was medically retired by reason of a physical disability with a 50 percent disability rating. In summary the opinion stated that the applicant's petition requests his condition of migraine headaches be considered as being incurred while he was entitled to basic pay and that he be retired due to a physical disability which did not exist prior to entering the service with a 50 percent disability rating. The...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00712
The medical record documents three major seizures in the first year of diagnosis, in November 2002, March 2003, and July 2003. VA treatment report on 20 November 2008, also stated last the major seizure was March 2008. The FPEB noted that the CI had another seizure in March 2008.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085477C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS : Reconsideration of his request for an increase in his physical disability rating or that he be returned to active duty. 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 Board concludes that if, instead of having surgery for medial epicondylitis his shoulder had been operated on, the applicant still would have been released from active duty on or about the...