Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002871
Original file (20130002871.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  12 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130002871 


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 he be transferred to the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) (it appears he wants a medical retirement). 

2.  The applicant states:

* upon being discharged from active duty, he was assigned a 30% disability rating by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)
* he was discharged without consideration of being transferred to the PDRL
* this error has prevented him from being eligible for retirement benefits since the time of his discharge (17 years ago)
* his condition has significantly deteriorated over the years
* with his combined 30% disability rating and unfitting conditions, he is requesting transfer to the PDRL  

3.  The applicant provides:

* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) documentation
* DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the periods ending 20 December 1995 and 2 July 1990
* National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)/Medical Retention Board (MMRB) documentation
* MEB/PEB proceedings
* DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile)	

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 applicant's 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 applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  Having prior active service in the Regular Army (RA) and inactive service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the RA on 24 November 1993.  He served as a personnel actions specialist.

3.  He was issued a permanent profile on 25 May 1995 for chronic left leg pain.

4.  In August 1995, an MMRB recommended that his records be forwarded for MEB processing.

5.  On 25 October 1995, an MEB diagnosed the applicant with:

* multiple arthralgias, including bilateral knees and right elbow, etiology unknown
* chronic mechanical low back pain
* recurrent, multiple angiolipomas
* prostate nodule
* mild knee and elbow inflammation, cause as yet to be determined
* history of increased "LFTs," now resolved

6.  The MEB recommended his referral to a PEB.  On 1 November 1995, he agreed with the findings and recommendations.

7.  On 2 November 1995, a PEB found him physically unfit due to multiple arthralgias bilateral knees, right elbow and chronic low back pain with few objective findings.  He was rated for pain in more than 2 major joints.  The PEB recommended a combined 20 percent disability rating percentage and separation from the service with severance pay.  On 7 November 1995, the applicant concurred with the PEB's findings and recommendations and waived a formal hearing.

8.  On 8 November 1995, the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) approved the PEB's findings.

9.  On 20 December 1995, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 4-24b(3), by reason of disability, severance pay.

10.  He provides VA documentation which shows he is receiving service-connected disability compensation (30%).

11.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides for the disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade, or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

12.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent.

13.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  It states that after establishing the fact that a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability and that the Soldier is entitled to benefits, the PEB must decide the percentage rating for each unfitting compensable disability.  Percentage ratings reflect the severity of the Soldier's medical condition at the time of the rating.

14.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permit the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.





DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant contends he was assigned a 30% disability rating by the MEB/PEB, evidence shows the MEB did not assign any disability rating and the PEB recommended a 20% disability rating.    
 
2.  The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB on 7 November 1995; however, it appears he now wants his disability rating increased to match his VA rating (30%) and correction of his records to show he was medically retired.

3.  It is acknowledged the VA granted him a 30% disability rating.  However, an award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation from the Army.  Operating under different laws and its own policies and regulations, the VA, has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military service, awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service (service-connected) and affects the individual’s civilian employability.  Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency’s examinations and findings.  The Army rates only those conditions found to be unfitting.

4.  Regrettably, there is insufficient evidence to show his disability was improperly rated by the PEB in 1995.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request to increase his disability rating for a medical retirement.

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)                                         AR20130002871





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130002871



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015891

    Original file (20130015891.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) shows, on 31 July 1998, an informal PEB reviewed the applicant's MEB proceedings, along with her medical records, and found her physically unfit due to chronic low back pain and s/p lumbar discectomy, L5-S1 left. Upon review of the applicant's MEB proceedings, along with her medical records, the PEB found the applicant medically unfit due to chronic low back pain and status post lumbar discectomy (L5-S1 left). Except for the rated conditions, there is no...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062151C070421

    Original file (2001062151C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When provided the same evidence submitted to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for the same time period, the VA in July 2000 determined that he receive a 40 percent rating for his left arm with an overall rating of 50 percent. It is a fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of soldiers who are referred to the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the soldier against the physical requirements of the soldier’s...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005518

    Original file (20080005518.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD. There is no evidence available to show that the applicant was unfit for military service because of her left knee injury. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by offering her the opportunity to undergo a physical evaluation to determine her fitness for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019724

    Original file (20130019724.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * separation orders * DA Form 7652 (Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Commander's Performance and Functional Statement * Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary (NARSUM) * VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating, dated 3 March 2013 * VA Rating Decision * VA/Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Disability Evaluation Board Form * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) * approximately...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01561

    Original file (PD-2013-01561.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SEPARATION DATE: 20041006 The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The PEB adjudicated the chronic multiple joint arthralgias as unfitting with a disability rating of 0%, coded 5099-5002, analogous to rheumatoid arthritis. In the matter of the chronic multiple joint arthralgias condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 40%, coded 5099-5025 IAW VASRD §4.71a.There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003655

    Original file (20110003655.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) grossly underrated his injuries and long term care that would be necessary for treatment including, but not limited to injuries to his leg, arm, back, and subsequent health problems directly related to his injuries. On 7 April 2008, a PEB found the applicant physically unfit due to: a. limitation of motion of the right ankle (with pain) following distal fibular fracture with disruption of the syndesmotic ligament, Department of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022076

    Original file (20130022076.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of her medical evaluation board (MEB) and physical evaluation board (PEB) proceedings to show additional unfitting medical conditions and her discharge with severance pay changed to physical disability retirement. The applicant contends her MEB and PEB proceedings should be corrected to show additional unfitting medical conditions and her discharge with severance pay changed to physical disability retirement. The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009835

    Original file (20060009835.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 10 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060009835 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. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to have his rank reinstated to specialist/pay grade E-4 and his disability rating upgraded based on his head injury and current disabilities. The TDRL examination shows that it was suggested that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018532

    Original file (20110018532.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) * DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 24 February 2009 * medical records CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. However, the evidence shows the TDRL PEB found him fit for duty on 15 June 2010 and he agreed with these findings and recommendation on 6 July 2010. There is insufficient evidence to show the applicant's condition was...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01931

    Original file (PD 2012 01931.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    It must nevertheless be affirmed that the scope of the Board recommendations does not extend to conditions which were not diagnosed in service, even though symptoms and disability may have been present which were later attributed to such diagnoses; since such undiagnosed conditions cannot be correlated with a fitness determination requisite for service rating.The Board will thus evaluate the disability associated with the in-scope conditions, irrespective of service diagnosis; make fitness...