| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. Arthur a. Omartian | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, physical disability retirement or separation.
APPLICANT STATES: That he had a temporary profile (T-3) on his back for more than six months, which limited his performance as an infantryman. He states that he is no longer in the Army Reserve, and wants a reevaluation of his records. He injured his back in April 1999 and had continued problems until he left the service. An MRI in September 2000 showed that he had a herniated disk at the L5-S1 region in his back and was considered for a possible recommendation for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or a permanent (P-3) profile. He had problems after physical therapy and was referred to the neurosurgery department at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, where he was informed that a MEB would be a waste of time, and that his herniated disk was not that serious since he did not have a nerve compression. He has been on and off profile from April 1999 to October 2000 and in November 2000, he was placed on temporary profile until his discharge. He has since learned that he should have been granted a MEB.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered on active duty on 27 August 1993. He was an infantryman. He was discharged from the Army with an honorable characterization of service on 15 April 2001 at Baumholder, Germany, and transferred to the 464th Replacement Company, a Reserve unit in Germany. He had 7 years, 7 months, and 19 days of service.
A 16 October 2000 medical report indicates that the applicant wanted to know the results of his MRI, and also shows that the applicant thought the doctor wanted to do pool therapy and then consider permanent profile versus a MEB.
A 19 October 2000 DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) shows that the applicant received a T-3 profile because of his chronic low back pain – disk disease. His temporary profile was continued in December 2000 and January 2001.
A 27 December 2000 individual sick slip shows that the applicant was seen because of his low back pain, with the examining physician stating that he should receive physical therapy until his spasms were resolved. A 2 January 2000 individual sick slip indicates that the applicant should continue with his physical therapy.
A 20 February 2001 report of medical history shows that the applicant indicated that he had various ailments, to include a herniated disk. A medical report completed at that time shows that prior to ETS (expiration of term of service) the applicant was pending a MEB.
Prior to his discharge, on 22 February 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve for one year, effective on his discharge from the Regular Army.
An NCO Evaluation Report for the period October 2000 through March 2001 shows that the applicant was an operations NCO with Company C, 2nd Battalion (Mechanized), 6th Infantry Regiment, a unit of the 1st Infantry Division in Germany. The applicant’s rater stated that the applicant had the endurance and determination to ensure all missions were completed to standard, and that his profile did not hinder his job performance. Both his rater and senior rater considered his performance and potential to be outstanding, and stated that he should be promoted ahead of his peers.
The applicant was discharged from the Army Reserve on 21 February 2002.
Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. It provides for medical evaluation boards (MEBs), which are convened to document a soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the soldier’s status. A decision is made as to the soldier’s medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501, chapter 3. If the MEB determines the soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the soldier to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).
Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army. It is a fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of soldiers who are referred to the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the soldier against the physical requirements of the soldier’s particular office, grade, rank or rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the soldier; and to make findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability.
Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.
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. Despite the applicant’s medical condition prior to his discharge in April 2001, he continued to perform his duties as indicated by his March 2001 NCO Evaluation Report. That report in fact, shows that he was an outstanding soldier, an infantryman with a mechanized infantry battalion, who performed superbly. His rating officials stated that his profile did not hinder his duty performance.
2. The applicant’s enlistment in and service with an Army Reserve unit after his discharge from active duty in April 2001 demonstrates that he was medically qualified for service, and that he himself felt so.
3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
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 _ __MKP _ __AAO __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072519 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021001 |
| 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 | CY2013 | PD2013 00662
The hip was not separately examined. Pre-SepFlexion (90 Normal) 60 90 (95) Combined (240)--- 240 Comment §4.71a Rating 20% 0%The Board first considered if the back pain was a separately unfitting condition. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.The Board did not surmise from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005365
His service medical records are not available for review with this case. A medical duty review board determined he was unfit for retention and issued him a permanent physical profile rating of "L4." There is insufficient evidence showing the applicant's injury in June 1999 resulting in his lower back pain was the cause of his medical diagnosis in November 2000 by the medical duty review board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076195C070215
A 26 January 2000 medical board evaluation summary consultation from an orthopedic physician shows the applicant reported several problems including neck and low back pain for approximately six to seven years. Except for the medical consultations, MEB and PEB proceedings, as noted above, the applicant’s medical records are not available to this Board. Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03096854C070212
The applicant requests physical disability retirement with a disability rating of 100 percent. A 30 August 1999 report of medical examination depicts the applicant's various medical conditions, to include bilateral weakness in arms/forearms, degenerative joint disease to his back, knees, and ankles, and bilateral ankle pain. The applicant had pain to his back, knee, right ankle, and left wrist, as a result of his various injuries; consequently, the PEB determined that he be rated as 20...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00466
The Board considered the chronic back pain radiating into the leg requiring narcotic pain medication, and the resulting physical limitations. The Board determined therefore that none of the stated conditions were subject to service disability rating. 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 his prior...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084398C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was discharged because of a service connected disability, without severance pay, and that his DD Form 214 be changed accordingly. On 26 June 2002 the applicant requested that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) correct his records to reflect a medical discharge. There is sufficient evidence to show that the applicant did have problems with his back, both at West Point and at Fort Sill; nevertheless, there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053926C070420
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. On 12 January 2000, a PEB...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00772
The MEB forwarded “thoracic back pain and herniated disk…”to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. An MRI of the thoracic spine of May 2000 revealed a small disc bulge in the mid back (T9-10) mildly compressing the thoracic spinal cord.On orthopedic evaluation in June 2000, motor and reflex exams were normal and surgical intervention was not recommended.At the MEB/narrative summary exam of 27 April 2001, 5 months prior to separation, the CI reported continued mid back...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01457
The CI requested a reconsideration of the IPEB findings after which the IPEB found the CI unfit for his low back condition, rated 10%. Subsequent multiple VA physical therapy records ranging to the end of 2002,within the 12-month window specified in DoDI 6040.44 regarding VA evaluations for Board consideration, did not demonstrate any deterioration in the CI’s condition, although the Board noted that the CI continued to have ongoing low back pain that was being treated with non-steroidal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014960
Counsel states, in effect, the treating/referring physician never stated he found the applicant fit for retention or separation or that he examined the applicant before terminating the MEB. The records indicate this evaluation was at the request of Dr. C____. d. In the applicant's case, an MEB was initiated by Dr. C____ and was referred to an MEB.