| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member | ||
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his 30 percent disability rating be increased.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his left knee that was originally wounded has become worse. He states that the altered gait has caused a pinched nerve in his back resulting in sciatic pain his right leg. In support of his application he submits, a medical examination of his lumbar spine completed at the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California, a medical statement from doctor, and copy Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was medically retired from the Army on 16 June 1953, after being found medically unfit by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).
On 27 May 1953, a formal PEB convened to evaluate the applicant’s medical condition. The PEB determined that the applicant was medically unfit for further service, and it recommended he be retired by reason of physical disability with a 40 percent disability rating. The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendations of the PEB.
The Army Physical Review Council (APRC) modified the PEB findings to show a combine diagnoses and physical disability rating of 30 percent, which was commensurate with the degree of functional impairment shown by the record in accordance with Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Code 5255 of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. On 10 June 1953, the applicant accepted the modified findings of the APRC, which resulted in his permanent retirement from the Army with 30 percent disability rating.
Paragraph 75, Department of the Army Special Order 116, dated 16 June 1953, authorized the applicant’s REFRAD for the purpose of medical retirement. This order indicated that the applicant was being retired by reason of physical disability and that his disability was rated at 30 percent. Accordingly, on 30 June 1953, he was separated in the rank and pay grade of first lieutenant/02 (1LT/02), and was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade.
Army Regulation 600-450, then in effect, in conjunction with regulations governing medical treatment of soldiers, provided that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and would, if it appeared as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or failed to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board. Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a PEB for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition. The fact that the individual has a medically disqualifying condition does not mandate the person’s separation from the service. Fitness for duty, within the parameters of the individual’s grade and military specialty, is the determining factor in regards to separation. If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an individual will be discharged with severance pay or retired.
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 performing active or inactive (weekend drill) duty.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his 30 percent disability rating should be increased, based on the deterioration of his physical disabilities that resulted in his being placed on the permanent physical disability Retired List, but finds this claim provides an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant the requested relief. By law, a PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an individual will be discharged with severance pay or retired.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was separated by reason of physical disability in accordance with regulatory guidance in effect at the time and that he was properly assigned a disability rating in accordance with the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Board takes special note of the fact that the applicant accepted the findings and recommendations of the PEB and APRC at the time of his separation processing.
3. The Army decision to medically retire the applicant was based on the determination made at the time that he was medically unfit for further service. Once retired, the responsibility for evaluating the applicant’s medical condition over time transferred to the VA. As such, the applicant may wish to contact the VA to determine if a change to his disability rating is appropriate at this time.
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
_AO__ __YM__ __JI DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084981 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.177 | 108.0000 |
| 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 | CY2005 | 20050000295C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings be corrected to include his civilian diagnosed sleep disorder (severe sleep obstructive apnea); that his disability rating be increased from 20 percent to 30 percent or higher; and that he be separated by reason of disability retirement vice disability with severance pay. The applicant states he believes that had he been referred for a sleep study prior to being separated, his disability rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006022
It states the percentage assigned to a medical defect or condition is the disability rating. A rating is not assigned until the PEB determines the Soldier is physically unfit for duty. The evidence of record confirms he was properly processed through the PDES, found unfit for duty, and assigned a 20 percent disability rating based on VASRD guidelines.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016789
The MEB's medically-acceptable conditions listed above met medical retention standards and were found to not be unfitting, either independently or in combination with any other conditions. The PEB recommended a combined 10-percent disability rating and separation with severance pay. Percentage ratings reflect the severity of the Soldier's medical condition at the time of rating.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014998
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth the 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 Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059803C070421
He provides as supporting evidence his Medical Condition – Physical Profile Record, DA Form 3349, dated 8 September 1971 (which he annotated that he was on light duty for the past 7 years); his notification of Physical Evaluation Board Action dated 15 January 1973 (which he annotated that the term “unfit for active service” should be changed to “unabled because of physical disability,” that his 50 percent disability rating should have read 100 percent, and questioned why he did not receive...
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 | CY2012 | 20120009642
The applicant requests, in effect, that a brain injury/mental health condition be added to his unfitting condition and his disability rating be increased to at least 30 percent (a medical retirement). His condition should have been rated as an unfitting condition. His disability was diagnosed as 100 percent disabling by the VA within 1 year of separation from the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001387C070206
On 26 February 2002, the applicant was placed on the temporary disabled retired list (TDRL) due to chronic low back pain and recurrent instability of the right shoulder. He was rated in accordance with diagnostic codes 5210 and 5295, and that at the same time his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) showed shoulder abduction was limited to 70 degrees and that he had a history of recurrent dislocations, weakness and instability. He was medically evaluated, the PEB was properly adjudicated and he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001387C070206
Rea M. Nuppenau | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 26 February 2002, the applicant was placed on the temporary disabled retired list (TDRL) due to chronic low back pain and recurrent instability of the right shoulder. He was medically evaluated, the PEB was properly adjudicated and he was separated in accordance with the guidelines in effect at the time.