Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082768C070215
Original file (2002082768C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 17 JULY 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002082768

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. Deborah L. Brantley Senior Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Joann H. Langston Chairperson
Ms. Regan K. Smith Member
Mr. John T. Meixell Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, disability compensation from the Army. He also states that he would like all of his medical problems specified on his separation document.

APPLICANT STATES: He suffered from a variety of injuries and ailments while in the military, including a broken arm, heat stroke, back problem due to a fall, varicose veins, a hernia, alcohol problems, and that he was hospitalized for a psychiatric condition, and was abused while in the military. He states that his separation document does not reflect any of that information. In addition to his self-authored statements, he submits a copy of a 1990 statement from a physician indicating that the applicant was “disabled because of anxiety and depression and low back pain.” He also submits a copy of his membership certificate in the American Legion and an undated document indicating that he has an appeal pending with the Board of Veterans Appeal.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were not available to the Board. However, the applicant’s extensive service medial records and a copy of his separation document were available. Those documents show:

The applicant was inducted and entered active duty on 17 May 1957.

His service medical records show that he was treated for “heat prostration” in June 1957 while undergoing training.

In August 1957, after completing basic training and returning from leave, the applicant fell down some stairs and was admitted to the hospital on 13 August 1957 with a diagnosis of a contusion to his back. He was subsequently referred, on 21 August 1957, to the Neuropsychiatry (NP) Service at Fort Riley, Kansas.

The applicant had been pending an administrative separation based on a
6 September 1957 neuropsychiatric examination which concluded that the applicant was suffering from a “schizoid personality” which was determined to have existed prior to his entry on active duty. However, upon admission to the NP Service, it was determined “as evidence accumulated for an underlying schizophrenic process, it was deemed advisable to separate him medically.”

The applicant underwent additional testing and evaluation and it was ultimately determined that he suffered from “schizophrenic reaction” which existed prior to his entry on active duty. Following completion of medical board proceedings, it was recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 based on his pre-existing medical condition.

On 17 October 1957, while still hospitalized, he was treated for a simple fracture to his left hand, which he sustained after hitting his hand on a metal bed.

The applicant remained hospitalized until his discharge on 24 October 1957.

Copies of the applicant’s service medical records, which documented his extensive hospitalization period, his treatment for heat prostration, back problem from his fall, and broken left hand, were forwarded to the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York in January 1958.

There were no service medical records which noted that the applicant had been treated for varicose veins, a hernia, and alcohol problems, or that he had been abused while in the military.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides that hereditary, congenital, and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnoses or should have been diagnosed. Army Regulation 635-40 also provides that individuals who are unfit by reason of physical disability neither incurred nor aggravated during any period of service will be separated without entitlement to benefits.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation as they see fit. 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. A rating action by the VA does not mean that an error or injustice exists in an individual’s military records or that the basis for an individual’s separation was erroneous. The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. Although the applicant provided no evidence to confirm that the VA is compensating the applicant for any of his service connected conditions, the existence of such evidence would not, in and of itself, serve as a basis to amended the applicant’s reason for separation from active duty.

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 available to the Board confirms that the applicant was discharged as a result of a pre-existing medical condition which rendered him unfit for continued military service. However, because the condition was neither incurred during, nor aggravated by, his military service, he is not entitled to any disability compensation from the Army.

2. The applicant’s other medical problems, including his broken hand, heat exhaustion, and back problem from a fall, are all well document in his service medical records. However, there was no evidence any of those conditions rendered him unfit for military service and as such would not have served as a basis for disability compensation. There was also no reason to list those conditions on the applicant’s separation document. The more appropriate venue for those conditions was the applicant’s service medical records, where they are recorded.

3. There was no evidence in available records, nor provided by the applicant, that he was treated for varicose veins, a hernia, and alcohol problems, or that he had been abused while in the military. In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis to add that information to the applicant’s service medical records.

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

__JHL __ __RKS__ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION



                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2002082768
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20030717
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.


Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01365

    Original file (PD2012 01365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequently after two TDRL periodic exams, the PEB determined the CI’s left lower leg DVT to be stable and unfitting and at this time also determined the CI’s condition to be “post phlebitic syndrome” rated 10%. CI CONTENTION : “Per the findings of my Physical Evaluation Board Proceeding dated 17 Nov 2002, my combined disability rating was rated at 40% category I unfitting conditions. Both the PEBand the VA used the same code:7121, with the PEB rating the condition 10%and the VA rating it...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01004

    Original file (PD-2014-01004.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The examiner opined that the physical findings were“ consistent with more than a moderate deformity.” The examiner noted that the radiologist described the February 2008 X-rays indicative of moderate bilateral pes planus deformity; however the examiner opined that the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00029

    Original file (PD2011-00029.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Right knee pain due to degenerative joint disease and chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease and disc bulge were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as medically unacceptable IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. The PEB adjudicated the right knee pain and low back pain conditions as unfitting, rated 10% each. Right Knee Condition .

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00087

    Original file (PD2009-00087.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander attributed the CI’s duty restrictions to his lower back pain (LBP) and leg pain from bilateral varicose veins. Due to prolonged duty restrictions, the CI was referred to the PEB, found unfit and separated at 20% disability for his bilateral varicose veins. The CI's profile was for LBP and varicose veins and listed restrictions that could not be attributed to varicose veins alone.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00560

    Original file (PD2011-00560.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board concluded that the evidence of the record did not support rating using the code for pulmonary vascular disease as there were no duty limiting respiratory symptoms and no evidence of chronic or recurrent pulmonary embolism. The Board does not have the authority under DoDI 6040.44 to render fitness or rating recommendations for any conditions not considered by the DES. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2000-190

    Original file (2000-190.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on its review of the applicant’s records, the DVA has apparently denied “service connection” for his hernias, knee problems, “chronic” back pain, ulcers, and hearing loss, for the reasons stated in the DVA’s Rating Decisions. He has not proved that all of the medical conditions he suffered and medical treatments he received while serving on active duty were not accurately recorded in his military medical file. The applicant also asked the Board for “disabilities,” which may...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2004-124

    Original file (2004-124.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    § 1201 provides that a member who is found to be “unfit to per- form the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical dis- ability incurred while entitled to basic pay” may be retired if the disability is (1) perma- nent and stable, (2) not a result of misconduct, and (3) for members with less than 20 years of service, “at least 30 percent under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the time of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003593

    Original file (20120003593.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army PDES 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 or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the physical evaluation board rates all disabilities using the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Subsequent to his retirement and over the years, the VA awarded him...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01180

    Original file (PD2010-01180.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Examination revealed varicose veins of both legs. Other PEB Conditions . Careful review of the treatment record reveals insufficient evidence for concluding that this condition interfered with duty performance to a degree that could be argued as unfitting.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00526

    Original file (PD2010-00526.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    RightRightFlexion (140⁰ normal)140⁰ with pain130⁰ x 3 with painExtension (0⁰ normal)0⁰0⁰ x 3CommentsClicking and grating on exam with antalgic gait and use of off-loader brace; resting position 10⁰ of flexion; crepitus; strength 4/5 secondary to pain; no instabilityRight knee patellar compression and McMurray tests positive; motor strength normal (5/5)Rating10% (§4.59 painful motion)10% (§4.71a painful motion)On the MEB exam (29 October 2007) five and one-half months prior to separation the...