| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he had 20 years of active service when he was medically retired.
APPLICANT STATES: That when he was discharged he was promised that he would be retired with 20 years of service. A 20-year retirement may make him eligible for certain improved disability compensation from the Department of Defense. He provides two Reports of Transfer or Discharge, DD Forms 214, and his physical evaluation board (PEB) proceedings as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having had prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army in 1957. He was assigned to Vietnam on or about 13 January 1968 and was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 23d Infantry, 25th Infantry Division as an 11C40 platoon sergeant.
On 30 April 1968, the applicant was wounded in action when a white phosphorus grenade exploded and he sustained extensive facial damage with severe trauma to the right and left eyes, destruction of teeth, deep lacerations, and a fracture of the larynx. He was medically evacuated to The Surgical Research Unit, Brooke General Hospital around 12 May 1968. He underwent multiple skin grafts with good results. His left eye was removed. Vision in his right eye improved to 20/200. Plastic surgery was performed on his lower lip defect with good results. His fractured larynx was left untreated but healed, leaving him with a hoarse voice.
On 4 September 1968, a medical evaluation board (MEB) noted 23 diagnoses as a result of the applicant’s injuries and recommended he be referred to a PEB as the absence of his left eye made him unfit for further active duty.
On 10 September 1968, an informal PEB found the applicant to be unfit for duty due to third degree burn scars over about 19 percent of his body, impairment of his central visual acuity, disfiguring scars to the head and face, and paralysis of the right internal saphenous nerve and recommended he be permanently retired with a 100 percent disability rating. The applicant did not apply for continuance on active duty. On 11 September 1968, he concurred with the findings of the PEB and waived a formal hearing of his case.
The applicant was released from active duty on 29 October 1968 in pay grade E-7. He had completed 19 years, 2 months, and 5 days of creditable active service.
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. In pertinent part, it states that a soldier may not be retained or separated solely to increase retirement or separation benefits. Soldiers who are medically unfit and not likely to return to duty should be processed for disability retirement or separation when it is decided that they have attained optimum hospital improvement.
Public Law 106-65, dated 5 October 1999, added section 1413 to Title 10, U. S. Code. It provides special compensation ($100, $200, or $300 per month if the qualifying service-connected disability is rated as 70 or 80 percent, 90 percent, or 100 percent, respectively) for certain severely disabled retirees. An eligible member is a retired member who is not retired for disability, is in a retired status, and has 20 or more years of service for purposes of computing retired pay. The law was later amended to provide this special compensation to delete the requirement to have not been retired for disability. The amendment took effect on 1 October 2001 and applies to months that begin on or after that date. No benefit may be paid under this section to any person by reason of the amendment for any period before that date.
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. It appears that the applicant had obtained optimal hospitalization benefits by the time the PEB convened in September 1968. His burn injuries had healed to scars, his fractured larynx had healed, his left eye was surgically removed, vision in his right eye improved, and he had some plastic surgery completed. There is no evidence of record to show he was promised he would retire with 20 years of active duty and his PEB proceedings show that he did not request continuation on active duty. He was unfit for duty at that time and there were no regulatory provisions for retaining him on active duty an additional 10 months solely to increase any current or future retirement benefits.
2. Unfortunately, the timing of the applicant’s injuries appear to have made him ineligible for special compensation under Public Law 106-65, enacted 30 years after he was injured.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__fne___ __wtm___ __cjp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069810 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020502 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018505
As such, the PEB did not rate those conditions. Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 7-2, provides that an individual may be placed on the TDRL (for the maximum period of 5 years which is allowed by Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1210) when it is determined that the individuals physical disability is not stable and he or she may recover and be fit for duty, or the individuals disability is not stable and the degree of severity may change within the next 5 years so as to change the disability...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 00028
On 30 June 1978, the applicant did not concur with the recommended findings and requested an appearance before the Formal PEB (FPEB) In a letter dated 1 August 1978, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon who cared for the applicant's hands provided a letter to the PEB challenging the notion that he was fit to return to duty. Counsel asserts that while the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the applicants request be denied, an examination of the clinical evidence available in 1978...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00735
The VA exam, one month prior to separation noted residual scar symptoms of the left hand to include itching and burning. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows and that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of her prior medical separation: Subj: PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR) RECOMMENDATIONS
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00640
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “I was far more disabled than the military medical examiner thought and I was not examined thoroughly enough. The examiner also noted the CI continued to minimize both his PTSD and alcohol abuse. He rated his pain as an 8.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003655
The applicant states the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) grossly underrated his injuries and long term care that would be necessary for treatment including, but not limited to injuries to his leg, arm, back, and subsequent health problems directly related to his injuries. On 7 April 2008, a PEB found the applicant physically unfit due to: a. limitation of motion of the right ankle (with pain) following distal fibular fracture with disruption of the syndesmotic ligament, Department of...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01139
Traumatic Optic Neuropathy Condition : The PEB rated the traumatic optic neuropathy with visual limitation of 20/40,limitation of up gaze in the right eye, right orbital fracture, hypertropia and exotropia and status post multiple skull fractures, Including a right orbit and bi-basilar skull fracture as Category II conditions (“Conditions that contribute to the unfitting condition”). Right Wrist Fracture Condition : T he PEB determined that the right wrist fracture condition was related to...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00256
Another VA C&P examination performed on 22 March 2006, 8 months after separation showed continued signs of muscle weakness and sensory loss with some loss of muscle bulk with abnormal gait. Subsequently, the VA rated the left leg condition separately from the combined rating in the 3 November 2006 VA rating decision and rated it 20%, coded 8523-5262, (incomplete) paralysis of the deep peroneal nerve and impairment of the tibia and fibula. The VA C&P orthopedic examiner for the 22 June...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00348
Nevertheless, given the CI’s history of starting college prior to separation, employment after separation, and normal performance on tests of “intellectual abilities, memory, executive control, language, and visual-spatial functioning,” the Board agreed that the CI’s level of functioning at separation best fit the VASRD §4.130 10% criteria, “occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01256
The NARSUM examiner documented only a two inch surgical scar and referred to the MEB ROMs charted above; but, the physical therapy (PT) examiner specifically tested motor strength with right shoulder flexion and noted a 4/5 loss. The Board considered that, although the probative ROM measurements were non-compensable; the residual occupational and daily activity impairments due to pain and the diminished strength in evidence adequately supported application of either VASRD §4.40 (functional...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00455
(2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.” The ratings for unfitting conditions will be reviewed in all cases. Under VASRD §4.124a, for code 8045 effective the CI’s date of separation: RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that the...