Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
MR. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
4. On 11 August 1998 the applicant received a permanent physical profile of 3 1 1 1 1 1. He could do no running, jumping, or marching and no mandatory strenuous physical activity.
5. An 11 August 1998 report of medical examination shows that the applicant had a physical profile of 3 1 1 1 1 1, and that he was not qualified for military service because of EB bullosa simplex (recurring blisters of the skin with intense physical activity). In the report of medical history that he furnished for the examination he stated that he was in good health, but indicated that he did have problems with his feet.
6. In a 3 September 1998 memorandum for a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) the applicant's commanding officer stated that the applicant performed all his tasks that he was capable of performing satisfactorily; however, he did not participate in regular training due to an extended profile. He stated that the applicant's physical status was questionable and he would have a difficult time functioning in the physically demanding Army environment. He stated that it was in the best interests of the applicant and the Army that the applicant be separated from the Army because of his physical limitations.
7. A 17 September 1998 narrative summary prepared for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) shows that the applicant's condition was diagnosed as EB simplex. The examining physician indicated that the applicant did not meet the physical standards for retention in the Army and that his condition existed prior to his service. He recommended that he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for retention. On 22 September 1998 a MEB recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5 (expeditious discharge) because of his medical condition. The applicant indicated that he agreed with the board's findings and recommendation, but also indicated that he wanted to continue on active duty. The MEB indicated that his continuance on active duty was medically inadvisable.
8. Subsequent to the MEB proceedings, the applicant requested to the Total Army Personnel Command that if it was determined that he was unfit because of physical disability, he be continued on active duty.
9. On 28 September 1998 a PEB determined that the applicant was physically unfit for further service. It indicated that his congenital skin disease, present since age 7, and his restrictive physical profile precluded his completion of basic training, and that there was compelling evidence to support a finding that his current condition existed prior to service, and was not permanently aggravated by such service. The PEB indicated that the applicant had applied for continuance on active duty; however, recommended that the applicant be separated from the service without disability benefits. The applicant nonconcurred and requested a formal hearing.
10. On 21 October 1998 a formal PEB met. The applicant and his counsel appeared before that board. The PEB came to the same conclusions and made the same recommendations as indicated in the 28 September 1998 informal PEB proceedings. The applicant nonconcurred and stated that many people in the United States have been diagnosed with EB simplex, and that many people in the Army suffer from blistering and still are able to remain. He stated that EB is not a serious disease even in the Army if properly taken care of. He stated that he could properly take care of his feet and should be able to perform his duties without major complications. He stated that he was a strong Soldier who could run 5 miles in 45 minutes and also pass the physical training test. He stated, in effect, that if he was discharged based on an EPTS condition, it would be discriminatory.
11. On 2 November 1998 the PEB informed the applicant that it had reviewed his rebuttal but determined that no change to the original findings was warranted. The recommendations of the PEB were approved on 5 November 1998.
12. The PEB informed the Total Army Personnel Command that the finding that the applicant was unfit was approved, and that the case was forwarded for consideration of the applicant's request to remain on active duty as an exception to policy. The PEB recommended that the applicant's request be denied because of his physical impairment. On 14 December 1998 the Total Army Personnel Command disapproved the applicant's request for continuance on active duty. On 23 December 1998 the Commander, Martin Community Hospital was informed that the applicant's request was not favorably considered, and that appropriate orders will be published or proper instructions issued based on the decision of the Army Physical Disability Agency.
13. The applicant was discharged on 19 January 1999 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(4). He had 8 months and 6 days of service.
14. A health record, dated 24 October 2000, shows that a dermatologist examined the applicant. That record indicated that the applicant had no history as a child that he had blisters. The dermatologist stated that there was no evidence of EB, that the applicant had mild sweating on feet and a history of "march blisters." He stated that there was no evidence of skin disease with occupational/military implications. He stated that mild sweating of the feet and march blisters are related and are very common and usually easily treated with appropriate socks and antiperspirant.
15. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines EB simplex as a dominantly inherited, relatively benign, nonscarring form of EB (a loosened state of the epidermis, with formation of blebs and bullae either spontaneously or after trauma), most often involving the extremities, and usually presenting during the first few years of life; blistering may cease in adulthood.
16. Army Regulation 635-40 provides for medical evaluation boards, 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 PEB (Physical Evaluation Board).
17. 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.
18. The PEB may decide that a Soldier’s physical defect existed prior to service. If so, the board must further consider whether military service aggravated the unfitting defect. According to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered military service. Hereditary or congenital conditions are examples of EPTS conditions.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Notwithstanding the evaluation that the applicant received some 20 months after his discharge, the applicant was determined by proper medical authority that he had a medical condition, EB simplex, that existed prior to his enlistment in the Army, and that because of this condition, he was physically unfit for military service. In this respect, the applicant had the benefit of having his case heard before a MEB, an informal PEB, and a formal PEB.
2. The applicant's record is correct. His request to amend his DD Form 214 to show that his discharge was not because of a physical disability is without merit.
3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JNS __ __JPI ___ __RKS __ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2003094804 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | YYYYMMDD |
DATE BOARDED | 20040415 |
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. | 110.00 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062946C070421
COUNSEL CONTENDS : That although the applicant concurred with the findings of the physical evaluation board (PEB), it was not an informed concurrence. On 24 October 2000, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for duty by reason of chronic bilateral plantar fasciitis due to bilateral pes planovalgus (diagnoses one and two) rated as moderate in accordance with U. S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) Policy/Guidance Memorandum #12, Analogous Ratings, dated 6 December 1999 under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001034
The applicant requests the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) the entry "Service-connected, received service-connected at 50-percent rating" vice "Disability, Existed Prior to Service, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)." Physical examination revealed no gross abnormalities: tenderness to palpation of the plantar fasciitis on the right foot...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009736
b. her initial "Report of Medical Examination" completed on 23 April 1997 shows she did not have any problems with her lower extremities and her feet were determined to have a normal arch. She was sent to the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for shin splints and flat feet. There is insufficient evidence to show the applicant's PEB findings were incorrect, that the applicant's shin splints did not exist prior to her service in the Army, that her leg condition was permanently aggravated by her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021459
In his previous request he specifically requested on his DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) to appear before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) along with a Veterans of Foreign Wars representative, if available. The VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) is the standard under which percentage rating decisions are to be made for disabled military personnel. There is no evidence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02411
Due to the severity of the applicant’s condition, his dermatologist initiated a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states psoriasis or a verified history of psoriasis is disqualifying for entry in military service. The applicant’s history of skin problems during basic training and the references to skin disease prior to his entry on active duty is consistent with a...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02628
While deployed to Iraq, the CI reported a flare of skin rash affecting his hands at the time he experience hand swelling and joint pain.A clinic record entry on 6 May 2003 recorded psoriasis of the scalp, hands, feet and elbow for the preceding 25 days treated with topical medication. I would say this is 90% better then when flared off of Enbrel.”The Board first considered whether the psoriasis skin disease was separately unfitting for military service. Throughout the time from 1999 to the...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01981
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCASE: PD-2013-01981 BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY BOARD DATE: 20140528 SEPARATION DATE: 20051126 The MEB also identified and forwarded for Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudication one other condition, depression, as medically acceptable. It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by the...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00068
RECOMMENDATIONS: Sergeant B---'s current medical condition of chronic psoriasis precludes him from continuation on active duty; and he is, therefore, going to be referred to the Physical Evaluation Board for further evaluation and disposition. No other medical conditions were documented; REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: Musculoskeletal - the patient complains of chronic knee pain. Other Conditions.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00468
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board did not surmise from the record or PEB ruling in this case that any prerogatives outside the VASRD were exercised.In the matter of the psoriasis (skin condition) and IAW VASRD §4.118, the Board unanimously...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03099080C070212
An 11 July 2003 medical record indicates that the applicant had been admitted to a VA medical clinic and that he was discharged on 11 July 2003 with a discharge diagnosis of major depressive disorder, severe, with psychotic That the applicant was treated for depression is noted as is the diagnoses provide by a VA clinical psychologist subsequent to his discharge; however; the MEB did not include a diagnose of depression in its findings and there is no evidence that this condition was...