| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member | ||
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her records be corrected to reflect that she was retired by reason of physical disability.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was unjustly discharged by reason of a personality disorder instead of physical disability. She goes on to state that she was under medical care at the time, that she had a rod sticking out of her foot and she was never acknowledged for her rescue of 25 women, which resulted in her discharge. She further states that she was scheduled to take 30 days of convalescent leave but was discharged before this happened and had to live the best way she could despite the fact that she could not work and take care of her children. In support of her application she submits a copy of a picture of a bandaged foot and documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) showing that she has been awarded disability compensation by that agency.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records, though somewhat incomplete, show:
She initially enlisted in the United States Naval Reserve on 30 April 1992 and served until she was honorably discharged on 25 May 1993. She then enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard on 26 May 1993 and served as a petroleum supply specialist until she was honorably discharged on 12 April 1994.
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 April 1994, for a period of 3 years and training as a wheeled vehicle repairer. She completed her advanced individual training at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and was transferred to Germany on 13 July 1996.
On 21 October 1997, she reenlisted for a period of 4 years and assignment to Hawaii. She was transferred to Hawaii on 10 July 1998, where she was assigned to a maintenance company as a wheel vehicle repairer.
The facts and circumstances surrounding her administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, her records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant. It shows that she was honorably discharged on 12 May 2000, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to a personality disorder. She had served 6 years, 7 months and 5 days of total active service and was paid $6,148.96 in one-half involuntary separation pay.
The documents provided by the applicant with her application consists of a VA Rating Decision dated 26 March 2001, which grants her a combined disability compensation (80%) beginning 13 May 2000.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.
Army Regulation 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation, provides that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 provides the criteria for discharge because of a personality disorder. It states, in pertinent that a soldier may be separated for personality disorders that interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in Psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis. Separation because of personality disorder is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.
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. In the absence of evidence of the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
2. The Board has noted the applicant's contentions; however, she has failed to show through the evidence submitted and the evidence of record that separation through medical channels was warranted at the time of separation or that she was not found fit for separation.
3. The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency. It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Department of the Army purposes.
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 this 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
__hbo___ __rjw____ __wtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079499 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 177 | 108.0000/MED RETIREMENT |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019988
The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 Worksheet (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * 36 pages of service medical records * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records and rating decisions CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The DD Form 214 she was issued at the time shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17, by reason of a physical condition, not a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021027
On 29 July 2011, an MEB convened and, after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found the applicant was diagnosed with: Diagnosis Met Retention Standards Did Not Meet Retention Standards 1. There is insufficient evidence in the available records and in the examiner's report that indicates the applicant was unfit for a behavioral health diagnosis at the time of her separation. Based upon the existing military medical and performance...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00843
The CI was subsequently medically evacuatedfrom theater for further evaluationforheat–related illness.At an internal medicine evaluation on 29 May 2003, the CI reported that a previous episode of heat stroke occurred in October 2002 while walking/running.At a neurological examination on 4 June 2003, the CIreported that the first heat-related episode while deployed was in early May after she was on guard duty. On the MEB DD Form 2807, dated 24 November 2003, the CI indicated she had anxiety,...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00672
Pre-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Bilateral Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome8799-87250%Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome w/Plantar Fasciitis, Right5276-852510%20030909Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome w/Plantar Fasciitis, Left5276-852510%20030909DysthymiaNot ReviewedDysthymia943310%20030909Other MEB/PEB Conditions x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 9 RATING: 0%RATING: 50%*Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20031024 ( most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). On the DD Form 2807, Report of...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01598
SEPARATION DATE: 20081107 The CI was also diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and a personality disorder that the PEB “found to be not compensable, although they may be administratively unfitting.” This case is eligible for review under the stipulations of the MH and Review Program as elaborated in the Scope above and, in accordance with VASRD 4.130 (mental disorders), only one disability rating may be provided for MH (except eating disorders) based upon total social and occupational...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD 2010 00402
The CI was placed on limited duty and underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The PEB adjudged the major depression condition as an unfitting “ overall effect” condition, without applying a VA diagnostic code. Considering the hospitalization, noted symptoms, intensive treatment, and significant lost duty time due to the CI’s mental disorder, and in consideration of the totality of the evidence, the DoDI 6040.44 “fair and equitable” standard was adequately met to adjudge the major...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01418
The CI’s chronic bilateral foot pain, chronic low back pain (LBP), plantar fasciitis and pes planus conditions were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. The IPEB did not address the remaining conditions (plantar fasciitis, pes planus and adjustment disorder).The CI appealed to the Formal PEB (FPEB) which reaffirmed the IPEB’s findings for the chronic low back condition as unfitting, rated at 10%, but changed the chronic foot pain (bilateral) diagnosis to bilateral...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00925
The “chronic pain, multiples cites [ sic ]”characterized as “mechanical thoracic and lumbar back pain,, “right knee pain,” “right ankle pain,” “right foot sesamoiditis and metatarsalgia,”“left knee pain,” and “left foot and ankle pain,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. Bilateral knee condition . X-rays were normal for both knees.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00868
SEPARATION DATE: 20061020 The bilateral foot conditions, characterized by the MEB as “hallux valgus” and “bilateral pes planus,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. There were no other MH treatment notes for review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006062C070205
The medical records that the applicant submitted show the following: a. c. At follow-up appointment for back pain on 15 July 2003, the applicant reported the pain present for 1 month. The medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of her separation.