Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004190C070205
Original file (20060004190C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 DECEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004190


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Rene’ R. Parker               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  In effect, the applicant requests physical disability retirement or
discharge.  He requests assistance in obtaining a MEB (Medical Evaluation
Board) for appropriate disability rating for his injuries/illnesses.

2.  The applicant states that he was supposed to be extended on active duty
to complete a MEB, but his unit refused to work with him to get this
process accomplished.

3.  The applicant provides various orders, Enlistment/Reenlistment
Documents, medical diagnosis, Congressional correspondence, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) correspondence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) for two
years on 20 April 2002 in the grade of E-4.  He later extended his
enlistment agreement for three years changing his expiration term of
service (ETS) to        18 June 2005.  However, his orders that honorably
discharged him from the USAR, effective 14 September 2005, show that he was
held beyond his normal discharge date.

2.  The applicant’s enlistment physical, dated 29 November 2001, shows that
the only medication he was taking at that time was Benadryl and Excedrin
because of headaches.  His physical also shows that he had sinusitis, hay
fever, and passed a kidney stone.  The applicant checked the blocks "No"
which indicated that he was never depressed, suffered from anxiety attacks,
or attempted suicide.  The applicant listed his health as "good."  He was
cleared to enlist in the Army Reserve.

3.  Three copies of orders dated 7 June 2004 show the applicant was ordered
to annual training for the following periods:  3 days beginning 23 June
2004, 3 days beginning 29 June 2004, and 4 days beginning 7 July 2004.

4.  On 8 August 2004, the applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal
for meritorious service from 27 October 2003 to 31 August 2004 while
serving as the Personnel Records Sergeant.  The award stated that the
applicant demonstrated exceptional leadership, a high level of maturity and
professionalism while directly supporting the mission of the brigade.

5.  On 24 June 2005, the applicant underwent a medical examination for a
medical board.  The physician assistant (PA) provided a brief synopsis of
the applicant’s medical history.  The PA said that the applicant suffered
from car and motion sickness as a passenger in a motor vehicle.  In 1982,
the applicant attempted suicide by cutting his midsection with a knife due
to feelings of depression and family issues.  A second attempt was made in
2003, due to depression and financial problems.  He had been seen by a
therapist from that point on.  In 1990, the applicant started experiencing
numbness and tingling in both shoulders that radiated from shoulder to
fingertips and the pain and numbness increased in 2004.  The applicant was
diagnosed with asthma in 1992 to the date of examination and was treated
with medications, but he continued to have breathing problems and shortness
of breath.  The applicant reported having hay fever and sinusitis for most
of his life.

6.  The applicant also complained of having frequent and severe headaches
which he (applicant) contributed to spinal arthritis.  The PA also stated
that the applicant had bilateral hearing impairment with tinnitus and
pressure in his ears from loud noises due to his occupation.  The applicant
reported being discharged from the Army on 15 January 1995.  The
applicant’s family had a history of diabetes and mental illness.  The
applicant had a history of pain in the left knee, joint and back pain with
scoliosis, and bulging disks.  The PA stated that the lab test revealed
that the applicant had low blood sugar.  The applicant complained of pain
and pressure in his chest, major depression, and severe and recurrent
social anxiety disorder.  The PA said a medical record review failed to
show any other significant medical history since the applicant's last
physical.

7.  The physical examination does not contain a medical summary or
recommendation.  However, a memorandum dated 24 June 2005, shows that the
PA requested assistance from the specialist who provided care to the
applicant.  The PA stated that the applicant was currently undergoing a MEB
by the Army to determine his fitness for duty status.  Therefore, the PA
requested that the specialist submit a summary of the applicant’s care to
include dates of treatment, diagnosis, functional limitations, and
prognosis.

8.  On 15 August 2005, a summary of clinical findings on the applicant
based upon collaborative reports from two other doctors was prepared.  It
stated that the applicant was diagnosed with spinal arthritis, thoracic
scoliosis, complications of the cervical spine, chronic pain disorder, and
Gulf War Syndrome.  In the summary it was noted that a Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine was ordered which found that there was
a broad-based disc bulge with


associated posterior osteophytes, with impingement on the cervical cord.
The applicant’s physical movement was limited and impaired by pain and
stiffness.  The applicant had difficultly bending over, reaching his toes
and standing on his heels.  Fingers of both hands were reddened, swollen,
and tender with stiffness and pain.  His spinal range of motion was limited
and exacerbated by the pain.  The applicant required a cane to maintain his
balance and assist him in walking and physical therapy pain management was
recommended.  However, the applicant’s condition was not expected to
improve due to the musculoskeletal pain.

9.  On 16 August 2005, a medical doctor provided a summary concerning the
applicant’s medical history.  He stated that he treated the applicant from
          14 January 2005 to 28 March 2005.  The applicant was found to be
disabled and diagnosed with major depression with recurrent psychotic
features due to the psychological impacts of the National Guard and Army
Reserve.  The medical doctor said he also diagnosed the applicant with
scoliosis, spinal arthritis, and complications of the cervical spine.

10.  The applicant provided numerous letters and documents he sent to his
Congressman explaining the situation with his Noncommissioned Officer
Evaluation Report, enlistment extension, and MEB.  He has also provided
witness statements and e-mails written by his wife and a personal family
representative that corroborated his story.

11.  Additionally, the applicant provided correspondence from the VA that
explained the VA was considering reopening some of his claims.

12.  The applicant’s records contain his DA Form 1059 (Service School
Academic Evaluation Report) from 25 May 1993 to 24 June 1993.  The form
shows that he successfully achieved course standards while attending the
Primary Leadership Development Course and passed his Army Physical Fitness
Test (APFT) that was administered in May 1993.  The applicant’s records do
not contain any other documents that show a current APFT.

13.  The applicant’s records do not contain any line of duty determinations
or any evidence that indicates he was injured or that his injuries were
aggravated while on active duty.  Additionally, he has failed to provide
any profiles that would indicate limitations of his performance of duty
because of an injury or illness.



14.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation), paragraph 3-2b(2), provides that when a member is being
separated by reasons other than physical disability, his or her continued
performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade
until he or she is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a
presumption that he or she is fit. This presumption can be overcome only by
clear and convincing evidence that he or she was unable to perform his or
her duties for a period of time 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.

15.  Additionally, paragraph 4-8, of that same regulation states that when
a commander believes that a Soldier of his or her command is unable to
perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating because of
physical disability, the commander will refer the Soldier to the
responsible medical treatment facilities (MTF) for evaluation.  The request
for evaluation will be in writing and will state the commander's reasons
for believing that the soldier is unable to perform his or her duties. DD
Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip) may be used for such referral.

16.  Army Regulation 600-60 implements and establishes operating procedures
for the Physical Performance Evaluation System (PPES), and states in
pertinent part that the PPES is a program designed to evaluate Soldiers who
have been issued a permanent physical profile with a numerical designator
of 3 or 4 under any physical profile serial code.  The PPES establishes the
Military Occupational Specialty Medical Retention Board (MMRB) as an
administrative screening board to determine if Soldiers have the physical
ability to satisfactorily perform in their specialty or branch worldwide
and in a field environment.  Soldiers with temporary profiles and Soldiers
with a permanent profile serial of 1 or 2 will not be referred to the MMRB.

17.  Army Regulation 40-3, Chapter 7, provides for medical evaluation
boards (MEBs), and is convened to document a service member’s medical
status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the member’s
medical status.  Situations that require consideration by a MEB include
those involving Reserve component personnel on active duty for training
(ADT) or inactive duty for training (IDT), whose fitness for further
military service upon completion of hospitalization is questionable, and
those who require hospitalization beyond the termination of their tour of
duty.  Consideration by a MEB also includes those involving a Reserve
component member who requires evaluation because of a condition that may
render him unfit for further duty.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant experienced medical issues
as early as 1982 when he attempted suicide.  He stated that in 1990 he
experienced numbness and tingling in both his shoulders that radiated from
shoulder to fingertips.  Nevertheless, these issues were not listed on his
enlistment physical when he enlisted in the Army Reserve in 2002.

2.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to show, and there is
no evidence, that the applicant was injured or that his injuries were
aggravated while on active duty.  Additionally, he has provided no evidence
to show he was placed on any type of profile which restricted his
performance of duty.  Despite the applicant’s listed injuries, he continued
to perform his duties as shown by the award of the Army Commendation Medal.


3.  Although the PA requested additional medical records on the applicant
citing that he (applicant) was currently undergoing a MEB by the Army to
determine his fitness, there is no evidence that the MEB actually occurred.
 Evidence of record shows that the applicant's medical condition did not
prevent him from performing his military duties.  The applicant did not
have any medically unfitting disability which required referral to a MMRB
or a MEB.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement
or separation.  There is also no reason to grant his request for a MEB.

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JS___  ___LE    _  ___MF __  DENY APPLICATION






BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                                  _______John Slone__________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004190                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061214                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02277

    Original file (PD-2013-02277.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Chronic Left Shoulder Pain Condition .The CI complained of left neck muscle spasmsseveralhours following his second AVA in the left arm on 1 August 2003.He reported that spasms and radiation of left arm pain had increased over the months,but he was asymptomatic at the 20May 2004 demobilization exam. Chronic Neck Pain Condition .An 18 February 2005 cervical spine MRIshowed a left disc protrusion at C6-7 causing stenosis and contacting the spinal cord and left-sided nerve root.The subjective...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01906

    Original file (PD-2014-01906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of the disability at the time of separation. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Neck Pain...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02128

    Original file (PD-2013-02128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On exam there was TTP of the neck with negative testing for nervecompression (Spurling’s), with normal ROM and normal bilateral UE examination.At the MEB examination on 21 October 2004, 6 months prior to separation, the CI reported chronic neck pain without radicular symptoms. The NARSUM notes the CI had a history of hip pain (trochanteric bursitis), with normal bilateral hip X-rays.Notes in the STR indicated that in April 2000 the CI reported 5 weeks of right hip pain. At the MEB...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00577

    Original file (PD-2014-00577.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Electrodiagnostic studies (electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity testing) demonstrated a right ulnar nerve neuropathy (at the elbow) but no evidence of any cervical spinal nerve root radiculopathy.At the MEB...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00175

    Original file (PD-2013-00175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On the physical examination, the NARSUM noted a well-healed scar, limited neck motion due to pain, but “no limitation of movement” of upper extremities, without weakness, including both shoulders. The IPEB (5 months prior to separation) adjudicated that the neck and shoulder condition was unfitting, noting normal EMG and full strength, but with decreased cervical range-of-motion (ROM) due to pain. §4.71a Rating 10 % 10%The Board directed attention to its rating recommendationbased on the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02481

    Original file (PD-2013-02481.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20040701VA* - (~2 Mos.Pre-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Neck & Back pain w/ DDD523710%Thoracic & Lumbar Spine DDD523710%20040907Neck Pain5237NSC20040907No Separate MEB/PEB AdjudicationLLE Neuropathy852010%20040907Flexible Pes PlanusNot UnfittingBilateral Pes Planus5276NSC20040907Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 5 Combined: 10%Combined: 20% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20041110 (most proximate to date of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00630

    Original file (PD-2014-00630.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Left Shoulder Condition . At the VA C&P examination, performed 16 months prior to separation, the CI reported a cervical spine injury in 1998 with continual pain accompanied by a left upper extremity radiculopathy. Based on the ROMs in the record the Board was unable to find a route to a higher rating.The MEB referred cervical spondylosis with C7-8 radiculopathy; however, the PEB noted cervical spondylosis “without significant neurologic abnormality.” The Board considered whether an...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00071

    Original file (PD2009-00071.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    ROMs were pain limited to Cervical: 30˚/190˚, and Thoracolumbar 30˚/140˚. Although Physical Evaluation Board findings showed that your chronic cervical and thoracic pain was secondary to myofascial pain syndrome, VA finding showed instability of the cervical spine with limited range of motion, and chronic sprain, with scoliosis thoracolumbar spine, with limited range of motion which warrant the higher evaluation. The Cervical spine condition rating of 5021-5237 at 20% for forward flexion...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016871

    Original file (20110016871.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since he was serving on active duty under Title 32, U.S. Code (USC), and he had a line of duty (LOD) determination, he should have gone through the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Medical Retention Board (MMRB) process rather than the man-day (M-Day) process. His service medical records – specifically the DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) that documented his injury – are not available for review with this case. The Chief, Personnel Policy Division,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010341

    Original file (20110010341.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record shows when the MEB found the applicant's condition of chronic cervicalgia as unfitting the MEB also reviewed medical records which showed there was no evidence of radiculopathy. The PEB found his radiculopathy was not listed on his physical profile as requiring limitation of duties, the physical findings did not support that this condition hindered his abilities to perform his assigned duties, and they appropriately did not find this condition as unfitting as the...