Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001542
Original file (20120001542.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		 
		BOARD DATE:	  30 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001542 


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 completion of his medical evaluation board (MEB) process.

2.  The applicant states:

* he separated from the Army at the expiration of his term of service (ETS)
* he had an injury and half of his MEB process was done
* he had a recent surgery with no follow-up with doctors
* he injured himself during physical training and he could not walk for about 3 days
* he attended therapy for approximately 5 months
* he was deployed to Afghanistan and was medically evacuated to Landstuhl because of the pain in his leg and right side of his abdomen
* he was sent to a specialist in West Point, New York, and he was told that he had a "labral tear in the socket bone of his hip"
* while waiting for surgery, he was in the MEB process
* he told his case worker he wanted a military occupational specialty (MOS) Medical Retention Board (MMRB) so he could continue in the military
* he was extended for 3 months past his ETS
* he was told that after he had surgery, he could continue with the MEB process
* his case worker told him that she made a mistake in sending him to West Point and that he would no longer continue MEB processing
* when he went to reenlist, he was told that he was "out of the window to reenlist" and he had to go to his ETS because he was past the 5-month window
* his doctor told him that he needed 6 months to 1 year to fully recover and now he does not have any care and the hospital wants to charge him for his therapy because he is no longer in the military
* he had an Inspector General (IG) Investigation, which concluded  that there was a miscommunication between his doctors and case worker
* he was supposed to be held on active duty until he could recover from surgery
* he still has a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) profile and he is suffering from depression

3.  The applicant provides:

* Landstuhl Regional Medical Center letter, dated 8 June 2011
* Memorandum for Record, dated 13 September 2011
* Email, dated 15 September 2011
* Memorandum for Commander, 20th Engineer Battalion, dated 16 September 2010
* Outpatient Record, dated 3 September 2010
* DD Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip), dated 22 October 2010
* Patient Movement Record and Progress Notes
* DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 8 September 2011, 
14 September 2011, and 31 October 2011

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard (PRARNG) on 31 March 1997.  He completed training as a cannon crewmember.  After completing 8 years and 1 day of net service this period, he was honorably discharged from the PRARNG on 30 March 2005, at the expiration of his term of service.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years on 17 April 2007.  He deployed to Iraq on 15 January 2009.

3.  The applicant's Theater Medical Data Store Outpatient Record shows that on 3 September 2010, he was treated at the 581st Area Support Medical Company for groin (inguinal) pain.  The record shows that he was complaining of right inguinal hernia for 1 1/2 years.  He stated he pulled his right groin during combative training.  He stated he was seen before at the "Role 2" clinic and was awaiting a decision to have surgery done.  He stated he would like to start therapy to see if it would improve or if he would need surgery.  The applicant was informed that he needed to return to the unit medical provider to discuss surgery recommendations and possible Polymyalgia rheumatica for further treatment. 

4.  On 16 September 2010, the applicant's commander received a memorandum suggesting early redeployment.  The commander was told that the applicant had an 18-month history of chronic right-sided inguinal pain.  The commander was told the following:

* the applicant was experiencing chronic moderate-severe right-sided inguinal pain
* the applicant received conservative treatments of pain management with little improvement
* his symptoms had affected his ability to do physical training and work related activities
* a consult with the Role III Surgeon resulted in the recommendation for medical evacuation (Medivac) to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) for further evaluation and treatment

5.  The applicant was medivaced from Kandahar Air Base to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, on 23 September 2010.  He was medivaced to Ramstein Air Base, Germany, on 25 September 2010.

6.  On 31 January 2011, the applicant was placed on a permanent L3 physical profile for right groin pain (right hip labral tear, chronic tear groin tendon).  On a DA Form 3349, the doctor indicated that the applicant did not meet the retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3.  He indicated that an MEB was needed.

7.  The applicant provides a letter from LRMC dated 8 June 2011, welcoming him to the MEB case management service and providing information and instructions on the MEB process.

8.  On 8 September 2011, the applicant’s permanent L3 physical profile for right hip pain (from recent surgery) was changed to a temporary L3 physical profile.  On the DA Form 3349, the doctor indicated that he was unable to do any lower extremity training or activity besides what was described by physical therapy as part of his post-operative rehabilitation.  The expiration date of the profile was 7 December 2011.

9.  In a Memorandum for Record, dated 13 September 2011, the applicant's orthopedics doctor recommended approval for him to be retained in the Army past his contractual ETS to continue his medical evaluation and treatment with a new ETS date of 10 April 2012.

10.  The applicant provides a DA Form 3349, dated 14 September 2011, which shows he was placed on a temporary physical profile for PTSD.  The expiration date of the profile was 13 December 2011.

11.  On 15 September 2011, the applicant's doctor sent him and other Army medical officials an email stating the following:

* he believed the applicant was in the middle of an MEB and that's why he thought the MEB could be "put on hold" until he fully covered from his surgery
* he did not know that the applicant's enlistment had expired, which had nothing to do with an MEB
* the applicant's time in the Army would have been extended if he had just had Army surgery and was expected to suffer health damage from changing medical providers midstream, which was not the case
* it had been 3 months since the applicant's arthroscopy at West Point and no medical damage would occur with him completing his discharge
* the applicant could get follow-up care outside the Army, such as through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at home
* he requested that the Army try to arrange the applicant's 3-month follow-up visit at West Point as he returned to the United States
* the applicant would be lucky if he could get a 3-month follow-up at West Point

12.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 10 November 2011, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 4, upon completion of his required service.  His DD Form 214 shows he received a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 1.

13.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs the medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, and appointment; and the medical fitness standards for retention and separation, including retirement.  Chapter 3 pertains to medical fitness standards for retention and separation and gives the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service.  It states that Soldiers with conditions listed in that chapter who do not meet the required medical standards will be evaluated by an MEB and will be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  His supporting evidence has been considered.

2.  Other than the applicant's statements, there is very little offered for consideration.  The available evidence shows he was given a permanent L3 physical profile and entered into the disability evaluation system.  Before an MEB was completed, he was offered and accepted treatment at West Point by a physician who arthroscopically repaired his torn labrum.  He voluntarily extended his enlistment for 3 months to receive treatment.

3.  When he returned to Germany and his home unit, his permanent L3 profile changed to a temporary L3 profile and he was removed from the MEB process.

4.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that he was told that if he went to West Point and received treatment, he could return and continue the MEB process.  There is no IG complaint or IG determination contained in his official record.  He also provides no evidence showing he attempted to reenlist in the Army and was told that he had missed his 5-month window.

5.  The available records do not show that he was unfit for retention at the time of his discharge or that he was barred from reenlistment for any reason.

6.  He did not get the recommended follow-up for his hip surgery.  His doctors apparently had sufficient opportunity to reflect on his status and found him fit to complete his required service, refusing an MEB.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20120001542





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001542



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00599

    Original file (PD2012-00599.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY SEPARATION DATE: 20020713 NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE NUMBER: PD1200599 BOARD DATE: 20121108 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E4 (11B/Infantryman), medically separated for chronic right groin pain. The VA coded the condition as 7338 Hernia, Inguinal rated at 10%. RECOMMENDATION: The Board therefore recommends...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01706

    Original file (PD-2013-01706.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 the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Left Inguinal Pain following Hernia Repair8799-87300%Left Ilioinguinal Nerve Entrapment….Hernia Repair7338-853010%20040525Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 3 Combined: 0%Combined: 40% *Derived from VA...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01793

    Original file (PD-2013-01793.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6044.40, however, resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness determinations and rating decisions for disability at the time of separation. The PEB adjudicated the left groin condition at 10% coded 8730 (neuralgia; ilio-Inguinal nerve) whereas the VA dual coded (inguinal hernia-paralysis of ilio-Inguinal nerve) at 10%. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00064

    Original file (PD2010-00064.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW In the matter of the right inguinal condition (neuropathy complicating hernia repair), the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 10%, coded 8699-8630 IAW VASRD §4.124a. I direct that all the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected accordingly no later than 120 days from the date of this memorandum.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017796

    Original file (20120017796.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * he initially enlisted in the Regular Army in 1985 and served until he was discharged in 1992 * he secured civilian employment with a U.S. firm in Germany * he reenlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in 2008 and was ultimately deployed to Iraq where he was injured * he was returned to Germany and underwent two operations while assigned to the warrior transition unit (WTU) * while assigned to the WTU, it was determined no additional care was authorized, and he was...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00212

    Original file (PD2013 00212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The C&P joints exam noted a hip strength of 1/5 due to pain; the C&P general examination a week later noted no muscle atrophy and a normal motor examination.The various examination findings suggest that the CI’s abnormal gaitwas due to pain from the hip, rather than muscle weakness or motor nerve injury. On exam there was tenderness of the anterior, lateral and posterior left thigh and the examiner noted the CI’s paresthesias to have hyper-esthetic and “pins and needles” components.The...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00006

    Original file (PD2010-00006.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the matter of the right inguinal neuralgia condition with chronic right groin pain condition, the Board unanimously recommends a rating of 10% coded 8630 IAW VASRD §4.124a. In the matter of the right inguinal scar condition, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend a finding of unfit for additional rating at separation. Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01974

    Original file (PD2012 01974.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Chronic Left Hip Pain . However, a specialist did diagnose a soft tissue LBP condition 1 October 2002 as separate from the left hip pain The Board agreed that based on the evidence in the record both the left hip and LBP conditions were reasonably considered to be separately unfitting conditions at the time of separation. Chronic left hip pain condition: the VA rated the left hip pain condition as 8529 (neuropathy, external cutaneous nerve of the thigh) at 10%.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00779

    Original file (PD2011-00779.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PEB adjudicated the neuropathic pain right inguinal region condition as unfitting, rated 0%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The VA determined a disability rating for 7338-8630 hernia repair with neuropathy lower abdomen at 10% based on paralysis of the ilioinguinal nerve, noting this is the highest possible rating for injury to this nerve. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00844

    Original file (PD-2012-00844.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the chronic right groin pain condition as unfitting, rated 0%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). On examination, tenderness to palpation along the surgical incision site without mass or recurrence was noted. The Board noted the disparity between the findings of improving, episodic pain with reduction of the site of pain to a small area in the central surgical scar on multiple pain clinic visits and the report of the...