IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 May 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110012469
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 that his discharge due to disability with severance pay be changed to retirement by reason of permanent disability.
2. The applicant states that because of his mental state at the time he did not understand what was happening when he was seeing his counsel.
3. The applicant provides three pages explaining his application, a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and copies of his medical records.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 February 1990 for a period of 4 years, training as an infantryman, and a cash enlistment bonus. He completed his one-station unit training as an infantryman at Fort Benning, Georgia and was transferred to Germany for a 24-month tour. He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments, and he served a 1-year tour in Korea and 7 months in Bosnia before being assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas in February 1995. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 June 1997.
3. On 22 September 2003 he appeared before a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) at Fort Riley to consider his diagnoses of:
* Chronic Migraine Headaches
* Subjective Mild Intermittent Asthma
* Depression (Acceptable)
* Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms (Acceptable)
* Hearing Loss with right ear pain
4. The MEB found that the applicant no longer met the retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 and recommended that he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant indicated that he no longer desired to continue on active duty and he also disagreed with the findings and recommendation of the MEB. The MEB findings and proceedings were approved on 12 January 2004.
5. On 16 April 2004 a PEB determined that the applicants only unfitting condition was his chronic headaches. The PEB found him unfit for further servicer and recommended that he be separated with severance pay if eligible and given a 0% disability rating.
6. The applicant did not concur with the findings and recommendations of the PEB. He requested a formal hearing and appointment of counsel to represent him. A formal hearing was scheduled for 22 June 2004; however, on 21 June 2004, the applicant withdrew his demand for a formal hearing and indicated that after consulting with counsel he did not contest the findings and recommendation of the PEB.
7. On 4 October 2004 he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24B(3), due to disability, severance pay. He had served 14 years, 7 months, and 8 days of active service and was paid $66,319.20 in severance pay benefits.
8. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has an impairment rated at least 30% disabling.
9. Army Regulation 635-40 states, in pertinent part, that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. That regulation also provides the provisions for Soldiers to appeal the decisions of the various boards and agencies involved in determining a Soldiers disability ratings.
10. There is a difference between the VA and the Army disability systems. The Armys determination of a Soldiers physical fitness or unfitness is a factual finding based upon the individuals ability to perform the duties of his or her grade, rank or rating. If the Soldier is found to be physically unfit, a disability rating is awarded by the Army and is permanent in nature. The Army system requires that the Soldier only be rated as the condition(s) exist(s) at the time of the PEB hearing. The VA may find a Soldier unfit by reason of service-connected disability and may even initially assign a higher rating. The VAs ratings are based upon an individuals ability to gain employment as a civilian and may fluctuate within a period of time depending on the changes in the disability.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence in this case suggests that the applicants disability was properly evaluated in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations with no violations of any of the applicants rights and his separation with severance pay was in compliance with laws and regulations in effect at the time.
2. The applicant was found unfit for duty and he was assigned a combined disability rating of 0% for his unfitting condition as it existed at the time of his informal PEB hearing. Department of the Army disability decisions are based upon observations and determinations existing at the time of the PEB hearing. The Department of the Army ratings become effective the date that permanency of the diagnosis is established.
3. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he was not afforded proper disability processing or that the evaluation and the rating rendered by the PEB was incorrect.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
_______ _ 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) AR20110012469
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110012469
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014358
The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the type of separation as Honorable Discharge instead of Temporary Disability Retirement. 2. The applicants records show she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 5 years on 27 August 2992. The applicant's DD Form 214 issued on 8 January 2004 correctly shows her narrative reason for separation [retirement] as "Physical Disability-Temporary" and cannot be changed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004128
The board noted the applicant did desire to continue on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). On 11 May 2004, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for his right hand pain, rated 10 percent under the USAPDA's Pain Policy, and unfit for his post-concussive headaches, rated at 10 percent for "purely subjective complaints" in accordance with Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Code...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009020
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his 24 February 2005 Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to show he was medically disabled instead of fit for duty, assign a disability rating, and recommend that he be placed on the permanent disability retired list (PDRL). Army Regulation (AR) 635-40, governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. Soldiers on active duty and RC Soldiers not on active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002808
An informal PEB found the applicant unfit due to lower back rated 10% disabling and recommended that he be separated with severance pay. His PTSD should have been found to be unfitting and rated 50% disabling, his chronic lower back pain should have been rated 20% disabling, and his post-traumatic headaches should have been rated 10% disabling. As placement on the TDRL would require a subsequent medical examination at least every 18 months and he was subsequently assigned a VA disability...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007826
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his disability findings to add the following medical conditions to his existing unfitting condition and increase his disability rating for medical retirement: * post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) * insomnia * severe headaches * blurred vision * left arm condition 2. A DA Form 2173, dated 10 July 2008, shows he injured his shoulder on 6 February 2008 during deployment preparation activities. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010973
The applicant requests, in effect, the findings of his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) be set aside, nullified, voided, or modified to match the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating of 100 percent. The Army rates only conditions that are determined to be physically unfitting for further military service, thereby compensating the individual for the loss of his or her military career. The VA rating decision and medical treatment records...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014590
Officials at the PDA opined that the applicant did not provide any evidence of an unfitting blood related condition at the time he was being evaluated and recommended that no changes be made to the applicant's records. The Army system requires that the Soldier only be rated as the condition(s) exist(s) at the time of the PEB hearing. Inasmuch as the PEB proceedings are not present in the available evidence for the Board to review, it must be presumed, based on the explanation from the PDA,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011930
The PEB considered the condition listed as Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) diagnosis 2 and found that, even though the MEB determined the condition failed retention standards, the condition was not unfitting and therefore not ratable. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. A VA service-connected disability rating for a combat-related condition that a PEB found to...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050006326
The applicant requests that her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement. On 15 July 2004, a formal PEB found the applicant unfit due to chronic low back pain with no focal neurological deficit with a 10 percent disability rating; unfit due to blood pressure elevations, some associated with headaches, that did not appear to be controlled with outpatient management, no evidence the applicant could do less than 10+ METs (metabolic equivalents), with a zero percent disability...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010037
The applicant states she had two PEBs. On 8 April 2004, the U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board (USAPEB), Fort Sam Houston, TX, discontinued the applicant's PEB and returned the MEB to BACH with a 60-day suspense for the following reasons: * DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings) stated abnormal movements met retention standards; however, the DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) only listed a seizure disorder * A medication that the neurologist noted on his evaluation was not listed on her automated...