| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | ||
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his military records be corrected to show that he was medically retired.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he should have been medically retired for a hearing loss he suffered while serving in the Army. In support of his application he submits a copy of the letter dated 22 June 1993, authored by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office, Nashville, Tennessee.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant continuously served on active duty for a total of 8 years and
1 month, from 22 April 1965 to 21 May 1973. At that time, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) in order to join a unit of the United States Army Reserve (USAR). While on active duty, he was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Supply Specialist), and during his tenure on active duty he earned the Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award) and National Defense Service Medal. The record also shows that the highest rank he held while on active duty was specialist five/E-5 (SP5/E-5).
The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no medical records. Further, there are no documents on file in his MPRJ that indicate that he suffered from a hearing loss that prevented his continued performance of his military duties while on active duty and/or that would have warranted his being processed for separation through medical disability channels.
The 22 June 1993 VA letter, from the Nashville Regional Office, advised the applicant that his VA disability rating of 10 March 1988, which granted him service connection for bilateral hearing loss was a clear and unmistakable error. This letter also informed the applicant that unless evidence was provided that showed why it should not take place, his service connection for bilateral hearing loss rating would be terminated on 1 September 1993.
Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, 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.
Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, 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, or rating and the conditions must have been incurred while entitled to base pay.
Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails 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 physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.
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 applicant’s medical records were not available for review by the Board and the independent evidence provided by the applicant is not sufficient to support his contention that he should have received a medical discharge due to his hearing loss.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant did not suffer from a medically disqualifying condition that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels at the time he was REFRAD. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected during his separation processing.
3. The 1993 action taken by the VA in regard to the applicant’s status is not relevant to his separation processing from the Army in 1973. The VA, operating under its on policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit. Any rating action by the VA does not necessarily constitute an error or injustice on the part of the Army.
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
__KN___ __RO__ __PM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085248 |
| 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 | CY2008 | 20080011159
The applicant's military service records contain an SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 16 November 1971, which was completed by the attending physician at the time of the applicants medical examination prior to his release from active duty. There is no evidence in the applicants military service records that shows he was wounded or treated for wounds as a result of hostile action; his DA Form 20 does not show an entry in Item 40 (Wounds) or list the Purple Heart in Item 41...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014879
The applicant requests correction of his DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings) and DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), both dated in March 1996, by including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as one of his disabling conditions and increasing the combined disability rating for his service-connected permanent disability retirement from 40 percent (%) to 100% in order to match the findings of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098535C070212
The applicant states that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded him a 70 percent disability rating for the same medical conditions for which the Army awarded him a 10 percent rating. On 13 October 2000 the VA awarded the applicant a 40 percent disability rating for myofascial pain syndrome (claimed as low back pain, bilateral foot pain, and vertigo like symptoms), a 10 percent rating for residuals of a fracture of his distal right ulna with right wrist pain, and a 20 percent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000521
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states: * U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) CRSC Branch unjustly denied his CRSC application for a fourth time * HRC deemed his numeric assigned rated physical disabilities were not relevant to combat and/or combat-training related * the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Nashville Regional Office's Rating Decision supports his claim * the VA grossly failed to give due process...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511088C070209
APPLICANT STATES: That all of his disabilities should have been considered in determining his rating. The PEB determined that the applicants one unfitting condition was 20 percent disabling and recommended that he be discharged with severance pay. In compliance with this statute, Army Regulation 635-40 provides that those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board to determine whether they are unfit to be retained in the Army and,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016802
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110016802 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). In a 28 June 2001 letter the VA informed the applicant that they had increased his rating for degenerative arthritis to 20 percent.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015022
The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision rendered by the VA Regional Office located in Seatac, WA, dated 4 September 2013, which shows he had the following conditions that were subject to compensation at the time at a combined disability rating of 40%: a. service-connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, 10% effective date 1 March 2013; b. service-connection for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, 10% effective date 1 March 2013; c. service-connection for bilateral tinnitus, 10%...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000665
f. The Army rated him at 10 percent for each knee but he did not receive anything for his back. On 13 March 1996, an MEB convened at Fort Campbell, KY, and found his bilateral knee chondromalacia and DJD to be medically unacceptable in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). There is no evidence in his available medical records that shows he was ever found unfit to perform his duties due to a back injury/condition or that he was diagnosed with any back...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02385
The Board considered the data from the back examinations noted above. At that exam, thoracolumbar ROM was normal. Physical Disability Board of Review
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006853
Because she was rated less than 30 percent disabled and had less than 20 years of active service, her condition required separation with severance pay in lieu of retirement. Since the VASRD has no rating schedule for these conditions, rating by analogy will be done as follows: (1) If there is X-ray evidence of fracture of the femur or tibia, it should be rated as any other fracture. Operating under different law and its own policies and regulations, the DVA, which has neither the authority...