| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member | ||
| Mr. Patrick H. McGarthy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for a physical disability retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: That the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) increased his disability rating from 20 percent to 30 percent. Thirty percent was sought in his physical evaluation board (PEB) rebuttal. He believes it is unjust to deny him a medical retirement based upon one member's opinion when that opinion was contrary to the opinion of his surgeon. His surgeon concluded that only scar tissue could be removed and that further surgery would not improve the permanently disabling condition of his hand.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 16 May 2002 (docket number AR2001063539).
The applicant suffered an injury to his right hand on 25 November 1952. He was subsequently assigned to Valley Forge Army Hospital where he appeared before a medical evaluation board (MEB) on 15 June 1953 and a PEB on 19 June 1953. The PEB determined he was physically unfit to perform his duties; however, the president, a medical member of the PEB, dissented. The applicant rebutted. On 29 June 1953, the Adjutant General responded to his rebuttal by stating that the evidence of record failed to establish a sufficient degree of disability upon which a finding of physical unfitness could be made.
The applicant rebutted the Adjutant General's letter; however, the Adjutant General determined, on 16 July 1953, that he was physically fit for active military service.
On 25 July 1953, the applicant was honorably released from active duty not by reason of a physical disability.
The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision showing his wound of the right hand with ulnar nerve damage and limitation of motion of the middle, ring, and little fingers, which was 20 percent disabling, was increased to 30 percent effective 30 March 2001.
The applicant also provides 18 pages of his VA Connecticut medical records, the last two pages of which concern his hand condition. The records (a radiographic report) note that the applicant's right hand revealed an old fracture at the head and neck of the right fourth proximal phalanx and degenerative changes in the third and fourth proximal interphalangeal joints.
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 evidence provided by the applicant shows that the VA increased his disability rating for his hand injury to 30 percent in March 2001, almost 50 years after he was injured.
2. The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit. The VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved (i.e., the more stringent standard by which a soldier is determined not to be medically fit for duty versus the standard by which a civilian would be determined to be socially or industrially impaired), an individual’s medical condition may be rated by the VA as disabling even though the Army found him to be fit for duty.
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
__KAN__ __GJW _ __PHM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076109 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/23 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063539C070421
With the disability allowed for his paralysis of his ulnar digital nerve which produces a 40 percent loss of sensation to the area of his small finger, he requested that his hand impairment be considered on the basis of limitation of motion to three fingers of his right (major) hand, and that he be found physically unfit for further service by a disability percentage of 30 percent or more. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015382
In summary, he stated that he agreed his right hand condition should be rated at 50 percent, but disagreed with the finding that he was not given a separate rating for major depression. Although the applicant contends that as of today he has not had a formal hearing, the evidence of record shows he had a formal PEB on 18 September 1991. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition may not be considered to be a physical disability by the Army and yet be...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00487
“Hand pain and weakness” was adjudicated as related to the right hand hypothenar hammer syndrome and was discussed above in rating the right hand condition. Additionally, thoracic strain; bilateral knee patellofemoral syndrome; left foot plantar fasciitis; right foot plantar fasciitis with right little toe; left ankle strain; right ankle strain; cervical strain; bilateral tinnitus; impairment of hand-eye coordination and several other non-acute conditions were noted in the VA rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014556
The applicant further states that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided him a disability rating of 60 percent with 30 percent of that for radiculopathy and pain in his left arm/hand. In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents: a. DD Form 214, which shows, in pertinent part, he was placed on the TDRL, effective 2 September 2004. b. DA Form 199, dated 27 January 2006, which shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant was evaluated for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014695
The evidence of record shows that the applicant was diagnosed with "moderately severe" atrophy of upper and lower leg muscles with a 40 percent disability rating and an overall disability rating of 50 percent. The 40 percent disability rating he received is consistent with the medical evidence, the formal PEB findings, and the VASRD. Additionally, the applicant offers the fact that he was awarded a 60 percent disability percentage rating from the VA as proof that he should have received...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004191
The applicant states, in effect, that the PEB did not fully consider all his medical conditions and supporting evidence when it granted him a 20 percent disability rating. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: a. a copy of a DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings), dated 12 August 2002; b. a copy of a DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings), dated 14 June 2002 with supporting medical evidence; c. a copy of a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015597
The DVA, 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 individuals civilian employability. The governing regulation shows the Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting that were incurred or aggravated during the period of service. The evidence of record shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007123.
The applicant requests correction of his Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG) records as follows: * have the TNARNG complete a line of duty (LOD) investigation * have the TNARNG process him through the medical evaluation board/physical evaluation board (MEB/PEB) * medical retirement by reason of disability 2. Chapter 3 provides for various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standards required for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018948
The applicant contends the disability rating he received upon his discharge from the Army should be increased because his left ankle sprain condition as listed in his NARSUM was not evaluated by the PEB. The evidence of record confirms a PEB, after examining all the medical evidence, determined the applicant was unfit for further service based on his lumbar degenerative disc disease at L4-L5 and L5-S1 condition and he received a 10 percent disability rating. The Army assigns disability...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006763C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel points out that in April 2003 the applicant was found physically unfit with a recommended combined rating of 30 percent by a PEB and that the 2005 PEB findings resulted in a combined rating of 20 percent; however, there was no reason offered for this change in rating. The applicant disagreed with the 2005 PEB’s recommended disability percentage for his cognitive disorder disability.