Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007859
Original file (20070007859.txt) Auto-classification: Denied


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  15 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007859 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Margaret K. Patterson

Chairperson

Mr. Larry C. Bergquist

Member

Mr. Dale E. DeBruler

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.  The applicant requests reconsideration of her earlier application that was denied; wherein, she asked for correction of the records of her disabled husband, a former service member (FSM), to show that he received a medical retirement with entitlement to full benefits.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she is submitting this request based on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision, dated 24 April 2000, showing the FSM suffered from his medical conditions prior to his leaving the service.  The applicant states that it appears the Board did not consider this VA rating decision; the Medical Board Evaluation Report, undated; or the Educational Assessment/Evaluation, dated 3 May 1998.  She argues that these documents were submitted to show that the FSM was diagnosed prior to leaving the service with such conditions as functional cognitive dysfunction, severe allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis and left shoulder impingement syndrome.  The VA operated on his left shoulder after he left the service.  She further states that the VA examinations prove that all of the conditions the FSM has now, he had prior to leaving the service.  She also identifies the doctor's comment in the Medical Board Evaluation Report addressing the FSM's well below average academic performance on the Woodcock-Johnson psychoeducational battery.  She states also that the VA subsequently tested the FSM and found him with post traumatic stress disorder with major depression and with cognitive disorder, not otherwise specified.  The Social Security doctors concurred with the assessments from both the United States Army and the VA.  
	
3.  The applicant provides copies of the VA Rating Decision dated 26 April 2000; VA Decision on the FSM's Compensation Claim, dated 9 May 2000; Medical Board Evaluation, undated; and the Educational Assessment and Evaluation, dated 3 May 1998.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050011773, on 16 June 2006.

2.  Records show that the FSM enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 October 1984 and was assigned to initial training as an infantryman.  On 19 February 1985, after only 4 months and 15 days of creditable active service, he was discharged due to not meeting procurement medical fitness standards-no disability.
3.  On 17 May 1988, the FSM again enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed training as a 19K2O (M1 Abrams Armor Crewman).  On 24 March 2000, he was honorably discharged due to a medical disability rated at 10 percent disabling.  He was awarded severance pay.

4.  The Child Study Committee Chairman, Kaiserslautern High School, administered the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (Revised) Tests of Achievement to the FSM on 3 May 1998.  This educational assessment/evaluation was administered at the FSM's request.  The FSM reported that he had suffered a recent trauma and as a result felt that his academic skills had atrophied.  The examiner noted that the FSM, at the time of the evaluation, appeared healthy, although he wore a neck brace; that he was obviously nervous and appeared to be under stress.  The FSM was conscientious in his approach to the test, but became frustrated with his inability to respond and was visibly disappointed with his inadequacy.  The examiner summarized the FSM's performance as being low in broad reading and mathematics; and very low in broad written language and broad knowledge.  The examiner concluded that the FSM could be expected to experience great difficulty competing in any environment which required reading, writing, or mathematics.  

5.  The undated document titled "Medical Board Evaluation", [an enclosure to the Medical Evaluation Board held on 10 August 1999] indicates that the FSM's chief complaint was pain in his left hip and thigh, and was referred by a physician because of his inability to perform the duties of his military occupational specialty. The report also identifies that the FSM had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist with dissociative amnesia (in partial remission), and was under treatment with Prozac. The doctor commented on the FSM's academic performance as well below average on the Woodcock-Johnson psychoeducational battery and that this was a new condition.  The overall diagnosis included chronic left hip adductor tendonitis, left pectineal muscle strain, bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome, cervical spine degenerative joint disease with neck pain, left shoulder impingement syndrome, functional cognitive dysfunction, gulf war syndrome, intermittent hematuria, severe allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis, and dissociative amnesia, in partial remission.  The recommendation was for the FSM to be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).




6.  On 15 February 2000, the PEB determined that the FSM was physically unfit with a combined disability rating of 10 percent.  Accordingly, the PEB recommended that he be separated with severance pay.  The FSM concurred. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board fully considered the VA rating decision by displaying it as paragraph number seven of the Consideration of Evidence and analyzing its relationship to the case in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the Discussion and Conclusions section. 

2.   The evidence clearly shows that the FSM suffered from medical conditions that were found to be unfitting for further military service as an armored crewman.  Accordingly, he was rated with a 10 percent disability and awarded severance pay.  The additional evidence does not show that there was an error with this decision.

3.   Furthermore, there is no evidence to substantiate that the FSM's academic skills were so low as to render him unfit to perform his military duties as an armored crewman. 

4.  The evaluation of the FSM's disability by the Physical Disability Agency more appropriately describes his condition upon separation than does the evaluation by the VA.

5.  An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation.  The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service-connected.  Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  The Army must find unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated.

6.   In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.







BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ DED _  __MKP__  __LCB        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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050011773, dated 15 June 2006.




_        M. K. Patterson _____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070007859
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20071115
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
108.0000.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013452

    Original file (20090013452.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. His clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations (his entire medical records) were subsequently considered by an MEBD which recommended he be given a PEB. It also provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rating at less than 30 percent.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01988

    Original file (PD-2014-01988.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 theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The exam noted full neck range-of-motion (ROM) with pain and normal strength, sensation, and reflexes of the bilateral UE. At a PT visit the CI reported the LBP radiated to the right posterior mid-thigh and at a primary care visit on 23 June 2009 he reported numbness...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00221

    Original file (PD2009-00221.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), found unfit for continued military service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. At the time she separated from service DoDI 1332.39 was in effect and it stated that response to therapy was to be considered in all cases. c. She was not discharged on 4 August 2005 with entitlement to disability severance...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00187

    Original file (PD2010-00187.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the service treatment record and post separation treatment records proximate to separation to determine the CI’s mental health disability at the time of separation. All evidence considered, the Board recommends a separation rating for Generalized Anxiety Disorder with Major Depression, coded 9413 at 30% in this case. In the matter of the Cervical Neck Pain, Thoracic Back Pain, Lumbar Spine, and Left Shoulder conditions, the Board unanimously recommends no...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00024

    Original file (PD2010-00024.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    My sinus rating is 50% now. All evidence considered, and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the majority of the Board recommends a disability rating of 30% as the fair permanent separation rating for asthma (6602) in this case. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows and that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation:

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00444

    Original file (PD2011-00444.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the BPD II in full remission associated with anxiety disorder, social and industrial adaptability impairment mild, as unfitting, rated at 10%, with application of Veterans’ Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In the matter of the left knee, left shoulder, neck pain, headaches, right wrist condition, hydrocoele, anemia and seasonal allergic rhinitis or any other condition eligible for Board consideration, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01603

    Original file (PD2012 01603.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD1201603BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCEBOARD DATE: 20131016 Contended PEB Conditions .The Board’s main charge is to assess the fairness of the PEB’s determination that contended back pain,cold induced urticaria and hypertension conditions were not unfitting. In the matter of the contended back pain, cold induced uticariaand hypertension conditions the Board unanimously recommends no change from the PEB...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00020

    Original file (PD2010-00020.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI did not appeal and was medically separated with a 20% disability rating. The other conditions forwarded by the MEB and adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB were palpitations, bilateral shoulder pain and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). In the matter of the lumbar intervertebral disc syndrome condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01939

    Original file (PD-2014-01939.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Left knee pain . The Board determined that, since the left knee was implicated in the Physical Profile (DA Form 3349), and in the commander’s performance statement dated 10 May 2004, it was appropriate to document the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00401

    Original file (PD2011-00401.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the chronic left shoulder instability condition as unfitting, rated 20% with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The contended conditions adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB was intermittent back pain associated with mild degenerative disc disease. Medical hold was approved for completion of treatment for his left shoulder condition and the CI underwent left shoulder surgery in June 2005 followed by MEB evaluation.