| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge for unsatisfactory performance be corrected to an honorable discharge for medical disqualification.
APPLICANT STATES: While he was on active duty, he was hit from behind while jogging by a car traveling at least 67 miles per hour. He sustained a fractured lower left leg and a tilt in his pelvis which results in a curvature of his spine. That curvature causes him constant lower back pain which interferes with his ability to maintain gainful employment.
In support of his application he submits a transcript from his Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. This transcript shows that the applicant is being treated for chronic back pain, left hip pain secondary to a hip fracture, neck pain which was treated with neck fusion surgery, and various psychiatric problems.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 September 1987, and was awarded the military occupational specialty of infantryman.
At 0300, 25 September 1988, the applicant was hit by an automobile. At the time of the incident the applicant reported to his commander that while he was walking back to his barracks, he got tired and fell asleep in the bushes off the side of the road. He woke up and stumbled towards the road and was hit by a car. The applicant sustained a fracture to his left tibia/fibula, and a sprain to his right knee.
On 24 March 1989, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be involuntary separated due to unsatisfactory performance. The recommendation was based on the applicant’s failure to account for his field gear, for making false official statements to a noncommissioned officer and officer, for twice writing bad checks, for losing his military identification card and meal card for the second time, for failing to obey a lawful order, for twice failing to go at the time prescribed, and for failing to secure his wall locker which contained his field gear.
In conjunction with the proposed separation, the applicant’s command scheduled him for a mental status evaluation and a physical examination. The applicant was cleared psychiatrically, and it would appear that he was determined medically qualified (the record only contains the first page of the SF88, Report of Medical Examination, which does not show whether the applicant had any physical profile restrictions or whether he was determined medically qualified for separation. However, since the physical examination was done and it did not result in the termination of the applicant’s separation due to unsatisfactory performance, the Board must adopt a presumption of regularity, that the applicant was in fact determined medically qualified).
The applicant’s commander’s recommendation was approved and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate for unsatisfactory performance on 6 April 1989.
Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board. Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition. For example, a noncommissioned officer who receives above average evaluation reports and passes Army Physical Fitness Tests (which have been modified to comply with the individual’s physical profile limitations) after the individual was diagnosed as having the medical disqualification would probably be found to be fit for duty. The fact that the individual has a medically disqualifying condition does not mandate the person’s separation from the service. Fitness for duty, within the parameters of the individual’s grade and military specialty, is the determining factor in regards to separation. If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an individual will be discharged with severance pay or retired. 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. In this regard, the Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. While the applicant was in fact hit by an automobile while on active duty, there is no indication that he was determined medically disqualified as a result of those injuries. Without a finding of medical disqualification, there would be no basis to refer him to a PEB. Without consideration by a PEB, he could not have been placed on the Retired List for physical disability.
2. As such, his general discharge for unsatisfactory performance was appropriate, in consideration of his record of inefficiency and misconduct.
3. If the applicant’s medical condition worsened after his discharge, the DVA has the responsibility by law and regulation to treat any service related medical conditions and, if appropriate, compensate him for any loss of his industrial and social capacity.
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
___hof___ ____gjw__ ___jlp__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020723 |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510220C070209
After he stopped attending drills, he was discharged for medical disqualification upon the advice of the ARNG State Surgeon even though he had been found physically fit to perform his duties by a physical evaluation board (PEB). This paragraph requires a member who is determined to be medically disqualified for retention to be discharged or transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) (regardless of years of service), unless the member requests, and is granted, a waiver of the medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075489C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Through counsel, that the applicant's discharge with severance pay due to physical disability be corrected to placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL); that the applicant be given all back pay and allowances, less severance pay, this correction will necessitate; and "Determining the Petitioner's date of retirement to be the date that the Board acts favorably in this case." The formal PEB used the same description of the unfitting condition, but added...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058583C070421
APPLICANT STATES : That she had a compression fracture from an injury that she received in Kuwait. An 8 June 2001 VA medical record shows that she was receiving a 60 percent disability rating for neck and back pain, that the applicant stated that her problem had been progressively getting worse. Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011765
The disability rating from the physical evaluation board (PEB) did not include three compression fractures in the vertebrae/thoracic area. The PEB recommended a 20-percent disability rating and separation with severance pay. Although "minimal T8, T9, and T10 compression fractures" were noted on his radiology report during the VA Compensation and Pension physical examination prior to his discharge date, it is a medically acceptable condition and is not considered "unfit."
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01849
No other conditions were forwarded for adjudication.The Informal PEBadjudicated “fracture of the femoral neck of the right hip” and “chronic low back pain,” as unfitting, rated 0% each, with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004649
From 30 March through 1 December 2010, she continued to be seen for related medical complications and was diagnosed throughout this period with "stress fracture of the pelvis," "hip joint pain," "cervicalgia [cervical pain]," "joint pain," and "hip and lower back pain." Her narrative summary (NARSUM) prepared in conjunction with the MEB noted: * bone scan of 17 February 2010 showed stress reaction compression, side of neck and left hip * MRI of lumbar vertebrae on 19 November 2010 showed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103221C070208
The Rating Decision noted that a 40 percent rating (for the applicant's hip condition) was granted because the physical examination showed he could flex his hip only 10 degrees. It is also noted that the Army rated the applicant's knee condition in May 1994 at 10 percent whereas the VA, even after his numerous complaints of knee problems after the PEB, initially awarded a zero percent rating for his knee condition. There is no evidence that the applicant's ankle condition or injury to his...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00866
Multifactorial left hip pain refers to pubic ramus stress fracture, chronic tendinosis in the thigh adductors and inguinal and sacroiliac ligaments. All members agreed there was evidence of painful motion and decreased function warranting a rating of 10% with application of §4.59 and §4.40. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION Multifactorial Left Hip...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02744
The low back and right hip conditions, characterized as “lumbago” and “right femoral neck stress fracture,” were the only conditions forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic low back pain (LBP) without neurologic deficit” and “chronic right hip pain status post stress fracture”as unfitting, rated 10%each, referencing the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy for the hip with likely application of the Veterans...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007125
The applicant requests correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show something other than condition, not a disability. At this time, the applicant desired to pursue separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17, other physical conditions. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or...