| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Disability retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant makes no statement but attached an undated "memo" from the Disabled American Veterans organization which notes that "on the basis that the Veterans Administration has awarded you a service connected disability rating of 30%, or more, you may be eligible for disability retirement from military service." He submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
In 1971 the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied the applicant's petition to have his records corrected to show that he was retired by reason of physical disability. The Board's proceedings in that 1971 case were not in records available to the Board. In the absence of the original Board proceedings, this Board has accepted the current application and elected to do a "De Novo" review in order to provide the applicant with a clear understanding why his discharge has not been changed.
The applicant was a member of the United States Army Reserve between October 1949 and August 1950. On 8 August 1950 he enlisted in the Regular Army and remained on active duty via a series of reenlistment and extension actions until he was honorably discharged on 29 October 1968.
The applicant's separation physical examination, conducted on 29 October 1968, found the applicant medically qualified for separation. The evaluating physician did note that the applicant had a history of pneumonia and suffered from bilateral deafness.
A December 1967 document contained in his file indicates that he was reclassified out of his infantry specialty into an administrative specialty because of an "H-3" physical profile for bilateral deafness. The profile precluded assignment involving habitual or frequent exposure to loud noises or firing of weapons.
His records indicate that at some point after the applicant's 1968 discharge from active duty, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted the applicant a combined disability rating of 30 percent. The rating included a 10 percent rating for residuals of a shell fragment wound, 10 percent for chronic bronchitis and asthma, 10 percent for perforated right eardrum with active otitis media, and a 10 percent rating for anxiety reaction with history of amnesia.
The memo from the Disable American Veterans organization, submitted in support of the applicant's current application, indicates that if he wished "to apply for a correction of your discharge" he was advised to complete a Department of Defense Form 149 and "return it to our office together with a copy of your separation notice…[and] we will then present it to the proper branch of service in Washington, D.C. for consideration." The applicant's original 1971 application was submitted via that organization.
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, rank or rating.
Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3a, provided, in pertinent part, that performance of duty, despite an impairment, is evidence of physical fitness.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. 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. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. Furthermore, unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.
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. Although the applicant's separation physical noted several ailments his continued performance of duty until his separation from active duty in October 1968 was an indication that the applicant was fit for military duties.
2. The evidence of record indicates he did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.
3. A rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice by the Army. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit. Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its reason or authority for separation.
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
__SK ___ __RJW __ __MMB__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088161 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031106 |
| 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. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020053
d. The applicant contends that he has found certain existing and new evidence of record via statements made by various medical officers. A DA Form 8-118, dated 11 May 1971, reports that an MEB determined the applicant was unfit for duty due to vascular headaches and recommended his presentation to a PEB. The applicant contends that his medical condition has worsened and the VA currently rates him as 50-percent disabled; therefore, his U.S. Army disability rating should now be raised accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014525
Her medical evaluation board (MEB) noted her conditions of severe pes planus (both feet) and patellofemoral syndrome (both knees). Her records show she was evaluated by an MEB and PEB to determine whether she was fit for duty based on her rank and military specialty. The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003593
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062372C070421
The applicant applied to the Board to correct his records to show he was retired by reason of a physical disability. The VA Rating Decision dated 9 June 1998 shows the evidence established that the applicant’s Meniere’s syndrome was well controlled and stable on medication prior to 20 August 1993. Once a soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040008934C070208
An 8 October 1968 report of medical examination shows that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 3T 1 1 1. The evidence shows that the applicant was treated for two months at Ireland Army Hospital at Fort Knox, after which medical personnel felt that his condition was such that he could be discharged from the hospital. At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010123
The board found the applicant physically unfit and recommended he be separated with severance pay with a combined rating of 20 percent, if otherwise qualified. Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the Soldier and the Army. The available evidence shows the applicant appeared before a PEB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017590
On 4 September 1986, an informal PEB convened at Fort Gordon, GA The PEB found the applicant's conditions prevented him from performing the duties required of his grade and MOS and determined that he was physically unfit due to degenerative arthritis in his right shoulder and knees, rated as x-ray evidence of involvement in two or more joints (MEB diagnoses 2 and 3), and low back pain syndrome without neurological deficit or radicular pain, rated as slightly subjective symptoms only (MEB...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012323
It 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. By action of the ABCMR, the applicant was placed on the TDRL and temporarily retired under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 4-24b(2) and Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1552 for his disabilities of (1) traumatic arthritis, 20 percent disabling, (2) chronic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005364
The applicant requests correction of his record to show he was medically retired instead of honorably discharged with entitlement to severance pay. The applicant states: * the medical evaluation board (MEB) diagnosed him with headache syndrome, mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), and anxiety disorder * the physical evaluation board (PEB) only considered his gunshot wound and separated him with a 20 percent disability rating with severance pay * he was evaluated through the Department of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019156
The applicant provides: * Retirement DD Form 214 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * Correspondence with the National Personnel Records Center * Request for Extension of Overseas Tour * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with bronze star * Special Orders T-4 (patient) * Patient Evacuation Document * Clinical records, notes, referrals, cover sheets, and orders * Narrative Summary (NARSUM) * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) * Retirement orders *...