IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 10 March 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100021787
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his request to have the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) results changed to reflect that he was fit for duty, that his discharge be voided, and that he be reinstated to active duty in the pay grade of E-7.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly discharged from the service with severance pay after the Army botched his surgery. He goes on to state that he acquired a position as a Department of the Army civilian working at range control at Fort Richardson, AK and began to experience the same symptoms he had on active duty. He goes on to state that he used his civilian insurance to have surgery to correct the problem and found out that the first surgery had been done improperly, which resulted in his being unjustly discharged. He continues by stating that he now requires a waiver to reenter military service and contends that the Board took the easy way out by denying his previous application. He also states that he was and still is a good Soldier who is willing to do whatever it takes to continue to serve.
3. The applicant provides a Providence Alaska Medical Center (PAMC) Procedure Report, dated 8 July 2010, describing his surgical procedure.
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 AR20070015667, on 4 April 2008.
2. On 24 May 2007, an informal PEB found the applicant physically unfit due to chronic low back pain, improved after lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis, but unable to perform the rigors of infantry duty without exacerbation of pain. The PEB further found that imaging shows hardware in place, Grade I spondylolisthesis L4-L5, spondylolysis of L4, narrowing of the L4-L5 disk space, and degenerative changes at T12-L1.
3. The PEB recommended a combined 0 percent (%) disability rating percentage and that the applicant be separated with severance pay if otherwise qualified.
4. On 30 May 2007, the applicant acknowledged he had been advised of the findings and recommendations of the PEB and he had received a full explanation of the results of the findings and recommendations and legal rights pertaining thereto. The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived a formal hearing of his case.
5. On 11 July 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of disability with severance pay. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued at the time shows he completed 6 years,
9 months, and 23 days of net active service this period with 7 years, 4 months, and 2 days of total prior active service, for 14 years, 1 month, and 25 days of total active service. He was paid $48,594.00 in severance pay benefits. His
DD Form 214 shows he was assigned a reentry (RE) code of RE-3.
6. In his previous application to the Board the applicant submitted a letter, dated 24 October 2007, from his doctor at Providence/Matanuska Health Care in Wasilla, AK. The doctor reported the applicant was seen in their clinic where he had a normal physical exam and he was referred to physical therapy for a more extensive evaluation. The doctor further reported the applicant had some back pain and stiffness which was mild and he received a short course of physical therapy which improved his overall strength and conditioning. The doctor further noted the applicant should be reconsidered for active duty.
7. A review of the Operation Report, dated 18 July 2006, explaining the applicants operation at Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA on 17 July 2006 indicates that each screw placed in the applicant at the time was tested and found to be in good position.
8. The PAMC Procedure Report provided by the applicant as new evidence with his request indicates that the pedicle screws were backed out with a heavy needle holder. They were obviously extremely loose and nonunion in nature.
9. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides that a Soldier may be separated with severance pay if the Soldier's disability is rated at less than 30%, if the Soldier has less than 20 years of service as defined in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1208, and if the Soldier's disability occurred in the line of duty and is the proximate result of performing active duty.
10. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). Table 3-1 of this regulation provides that RE3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants contention that he was unjustly discharged because the decision of the PEB was based on a botched surgery by Army medical officials and that he has since had surgery that has corrected his problem has been noted and found to lack merit.
2. While it is recognized that there are always risks associated with surgery and that not all surgeries are successful, the fact that screws were found loose 3 years after his surgery does not constitute a botched surgery nor does it establish any negligence at the time on the part of the medical personnel who performed the surgery.
3. It is noted that at the time of his original surgery, specific mention was made regarding the correct positioning of the screws and the care used in installing them. Additionally, the report that the applicant provides as new evidence does
not indicate that an improper procedure had been previously performed or that the surgery had been botched as he claims.
4. It is also noted that when the applicant previously applied to the Board he submitted a statement from a physician that indicated he should be considered for active duty; however, it appears that he again had to have surgery for the same problem and he has still not provided sufficient evidence to show that he meets the medical standards for enlistment or retention.
5. While it is understood that the applicant does not want to apply for a waiver in order to enlist because he may lose a pay grade, the Board is not in a position to judge the applicants physical fitness for active duty and to do so would be inappropriate as it would afford him a benefit not afforded to others in similar circumstances.
6. Therefore, absent evidence to show that he was not afforded proper medical processing through the Physical Disability Evaluation System at the time, there appears to be no basis to grant his request.
7. However, the applicant is again advised that if he desires to enlist, he should contact a local recruiter who can best advise him on his eligibility for returning to military service. These individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time and are required to process enlistment waivers for the applicants RE code.
8. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must, 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__X_____ ____X___ ____X___ 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 AR20070015667, dated 4 April 2008.
_________X_____________
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100021787
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100021787
5
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104014C070208
Upon completion of his tour on active duty he was released from active duty not by reason of physical disability and assigned to his National Guard organization, the 29th Infantry Division. There is no evidence regarding his medical condition from 1975 until 1989. The evidence suggests that his condition, chronic low back pain, existed prior to his active duty service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012522
The applicant provides copies of the following: * Standard Form (SF) 558 (Emergency Care and Treatment) * six SF's 600 (Health Record Chronological Records of Medical Care) * SF 513 (Medical Record Consultation Sheet) * two DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile) * Optional Form (OF) 275 (MEB Medical Record Report) * MEB Proceedings * Memorandum, subject: Request for Line of Duty (LOD) Determination * Consultation Note * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) *...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00426
Back Condition . After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence the Board recommends a separation rating of 20% for the chronic LBP condition absent the addition of any ratable radiculopathy. No other conditions were service connected with a compensable rating by the VA within twelve months of separation or contended by the CI.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019996
The applicant states that several disabilities occurred and were diagnosed during his active service and should be reflected on his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings such as: Right knee tibial osteotomy, lumbar spine L4-L5 S1 degenerative disk disease; bilateral eye condition corneal defect; keratoconus bone contusion femoreal; bilateral hip condition; post right arm thrombophlebitis; eczema skin condition for onchomycosis; systemic lupus erythematosis; left and right knee surgery;...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01431
invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 Service IPEB – Dated 20040225VA* - Based on Service Treatment Records (STR)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Subjective Back Pain with L4-5 Spondylolisthesis523910%Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) and Spondylolisthesis5239-523540%STRChronic Arthritis Right Knee5003---%Arthritis, Right Knee5010-525910%STROther x0 (Not in Scope)Other x0 (Not in Scope) Combined: 10%Combined: 50%*Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061802C070421
The applicant states that after he was discharged from the Army, he had two operations to correct the nonunion of the femur fracture of his left leg. The applicant was discharged on 8 January 2001. c. discharging the applicant on 1 August 2001 because of physical disability with a 20 percent disability rating, and granting him additional severance pay based on this new discharge date.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00834
The PEB adjudicated the lumbar intervertebral disk syndrome condition as unfitting, rated 20% with application of Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI noticed back pain in March 2007 when he was lifting weights and felt a sharp pain in his back that was accompanied by muscle spasms and a burning sensation radiating down his left leg. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07711-99
The hearing panel found him unfit for continued naval service, and recommended that he be separated with a 10% rating under VA code 5295. It concludes that the PEB hearing panel gave too much weight to the statement of Dr. , which reflects substantially different In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting corrective action; however, as Petitioner ’s condition was subject to improvement at the time of his separation from the Navy, permanent retirement...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029747
On 30 January 2002, an informal PEB convened at Fort Sam Houston, TX, and found the applicant's condition prevented him from performing the duties required of his grade and specialty and determined that he was physically unfit due to chronic low back pain, with no neurological abnormality or muscle spasms, status post L4-S1 lumbar fusion in treatment of spondylolisthesis. He was rated under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and was granted a 10% disability rating based on...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00338
Post-Sep.Flexion (90 Normal)152035Combined (240)7010090Comments (Date of Surgery was 20040713)ROMs obtained 3.5 months prior to surgery; Pos. There were three service treatment notes related to the CI’s MH condition present for review. Physical Disability Board of Review