| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Mark Manning | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Richard Dunbar | Member | |
| Ms. Mae Bullock | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests physical disability retirement or separation.
2. The applicant states that the doctor had never seen his inflamed legs. He goes to bed on the sofa. He has not worked even part time because of his legs. He was referred to a specialist; however, is too poor to afford him. If he stands on his legs they will get to the point where he cannot walk.
3. The applicant provides a 17 November 2000 statement from a doctor in Westerville, Ohio. That physician stated that the applicant was inducted into the service when he was experiencing Osgood-Schlatter's disease. His service aggravated the disease to the point where he now suffers severe degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the knees, and where the only medical therapy available would be a total knee replacement. There is no conservative medical treatment that would help his condition. He stated that when he deteriorates to the point where he could no longer walk, the only recourse would be to remove both knees and replace them with artificial knees. He stated that it is with reasonable probability that the military service and its associated requirements directly and causally accelerated his Osgood-Schlatter's disease to the point where he has severe DJD of the knees for which there is no medical therapy available.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 22 November 1971. The application submitted in this case is dated 6 June 2003.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant was inducted into the Army on 23 March 1970. His record of induction shows that he claimed Osgood-Schlatter's disease of the knee. He was found medically acceptable for induction with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 2 1 1.
4. The applicant completed basic combat training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and training as a clerk at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He remained assigned at Fort Sill after completion of training as a battery clerk with an artillery unit. He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 26 December 1970.
5. On 3 March 1971 the applicant successfully completed the physical combat proficiency test. On 14 June 1971 the applicant's commanding officer recommended that the applicant be promoted to pay grade E-5. He indicated that his physical profile serial was 1 1 1 1 1 1; however, the personal data sheet prepared in connection with the recommendation showed a physical profile serial of 1 1 3 1 1 1. There is no explanation of the discrepancy.
6. The applicant was released from active duty for the convenience of the government on 22 November 1971. He had 1 year and 8 months of service.
7. The applicant's medical records are not available to the Board.
8. 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.
9. Army Regulation 40-501 provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.
10. Army Regulation 635-40, then in effect, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Absent evidence to the contrary the applicant was medically qualified for retention or separation. The applicant's continued performance of duty raised a presumption of fitness which he has not overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness or injury concomitant with his separation.
2. Notwithstanding the physician's statement that he provides with his request, there is no evidence that he had any unfitting medical condition during his period of service or at the time of his release from active duty in November 1971.
3. The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.
4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 22 November 1971; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 21 November 1974. However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__MM___ __RD ___ ___MB __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003097829 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040513 |
| 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 | PD-2013-01985
RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20050224VA -Based on Service Treatment Records(STR)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Bilateral Knee Pain Secondary To Osgood-Schlatter Disease5099-50030%Osgood-Schlatter Disease, Left Knee5299-526010%STROsgood-Schlatter Disease, Right Knee5299-526010%STROther Conditions in Scope x 0Other x 6 Combined: 0%Combined: 20%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20050526 ( most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). BOARD FINDINGS :...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006355C070206
The applicant was separated on 29 September 1975, under the provisions of paragraph 5-32 of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfulfilled enlistment commitment and issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate. The applicant stated in conclusion that he was "duped into accepting an Unfilled Enlistment Commitment discharge, when in fact I should have received a medical discharge for an injury that occurred while on active duty." Evidence of record shows the applicant was given a permanent...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00916
“Bilateral Osgood-Schlatter’s disease, status post tibial tubercle excisions, moderate was forwarded by them MEB as unfitting to the PEB IAW AR 40-501.”Low back pain (LBP), dorsal wrist ganglion, mild and hypothyroidism, moderate conditions, identified in the rating chart below, were also identified and forwarded by the MEB. The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the bilateral knee conditions as unfitting, rated 0%, withlikely application of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01960
A left knee X-rayfor chronic left knee pain was normal. VASRD §4.71a specifies for 5003 that “satisfactory evidence of painful motion” constitutes limitations of motion and specifies application of a 10% rating “for each such major joint or group of minor joints affected by limitation of motion.” The left knee condition could not be reasonably rated higher than 10% using any exam proximate to separation or any alternate coding schema.While the VA exam is approximately 5 years remote from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008719
All conditions were rated as zero percent disabling. The applicant was rated as 0 percent disabled under VASRD code 6847 for OSA requiring CPAP; CPAP not fully utilized with no reason given for non-compliance with the recommended CPAP treatment. The applicant's knee and ankle conditions were rated under VASRD code 5099-5003, 0 percent disabling, rated analogous to degenerative joint disease, no radiographic findings, full range of motion and stability, with minimal intensity.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00944
VA*CodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Left Ankle and Knee Pain 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.As discussed above, PEB reliance on the USAPDA pain policy for rating the left ankle and knee conditions was operant in this case and the condition was adjudicated...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01261
The PEB adjudicated the patellofemoral syndrome bilateral as unfitting, rated 10%, with application the Veterans’ Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The PEB on 9 October 2002, three months prior to separation, found patellofemoral syndrome, bilateral, unfitting, coded 5299-5003 (arthritis, degenerative) with a rating of 10%. The VA rationale noted that the ratings were non-compensable because the C&P examination documented full ROM without pain, no instability and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009467
The applicant states, in effect: * he injured his knee while in training and received surgery * he participated in physical therapy and tried to rehabilitate his knee * despite his efforts, he was referred to the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and went through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) * he was medically discharged, but the reason shown on his DD Form 214 is wrong * the PEB gave him a 0 percent disability rating and found that his...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00076
The CI had excessive daytime sleepiness and was diagnosed with OSA requiring CPAP as noted above. Right Knee Condition . The 5 months after separation VA exam, demonstrated ‘tender patella tendon, tender patella rub, prominent tibial tubercle; no instability.’ History on both exams noted increased pain with activity, walking and standing, but did not indicate painful motion, or pain-limited motion of the knee.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00344
SEPARATION DATE: 20060405 Left Knee Condition . By the time of separation, the CI’s condition had improved such that he had a full ROM, albeit that knee pain persisted in spite of treatment.