ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 March 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130008426 


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:

The applicant defers his request, statement, and evidence to counsel. 

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests correction of the applicant's records to show:

* he was medically retired and placed on the Retired List at the rate of 50 percent (50%) effective 12 February 2007
* entitlement to back retired pay from the date of his transfer to the Retired Reserve to the present

2.  Counsel states:

	a.  The applicant was considered by a formal physical evaluation board (PEB) on 26 December 2012 (i.e., 2006) and awarded a 20% rating, consisting of 10% for degenerative change to the lumbar spine, pain, and 10% for degenerative change in the cervical spine, pain.  On 5 January 2007, the applicant elected to transfer to the Retired Reserve instead of taking the disability separation.  He did so because his 20% disability rating only entitled him to severance pay and requires him to give up retired pay at age 60.  Accordingly, he was separated on 12 February 2007 and transferred to the Retired Reserve as he elected. 

	b.  However, the data derived from his medical evaluation board (MEB) clearly shows a range of motion (ROM) of 187 degrees for the cervical spine and 113 degrees for the thoracolumbar spine.  The Board should note that there is no indication regarding "end range limited by" in any plane for either the cervical or the thoracolumbar spine.  Yet, on page 4 of his narrative summary in each case the notation "no pain" is noted.  There is no basis for this notation.  The narrative summary was not completed by the same person who did the ROM study.  This is of critical importance because in 2006, pain limiting movement was not recognized.  This concept was eventually not utilized.  Since there is no evidence that pain limited motion in the applicant's case, ROM studies are dispositive and under 38 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), section 4.71a, the cervical spine should be rated at 20% because forward flexion is less than 205, the thoracolumbar spine should be rated at 40% because the forward flexion is less than 30%, and the total disability rating should be 50%.

	c.  Pain limitation was never an honest approach to rating backs just as active ROM measurements were inappropriately causing providers to put patients in harm's way.  There is no doubt that the applicant's ROM at the time of separation made him more than a 10% disability case for both the cervical and thoracolumbar spines.  The applicant should be retired. 

3.  Counsel provides:

* DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings)
* Request for Transfer to the Retired Reserve in lieu of Disability Processing
* Transfer to an Inactive Status Discharge with Severance Pay
* Early Release from Active Duty in Lieu of Disability Severance Pay
* MEB Narrative Summary
* Chronological Records of Medical Care

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 had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 18 August 1984.  He served through multiple reenlistments in a variety of assignments and he attained the rank/grade of sergeant major (SGM)/E-9.  

3.  On 30 May 2001, the U.S. Army Reserve Command issued him a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-year letter). 

4.  He entered active duty on or about 4 April 2004 and subsequently served in Kuwait/Iraq from on or about 4 June 2004 to on or about 31 January 2005.  At some point during his service in Iraq, the vehicle he was riding in hit a hole in the road.  He was thrown about the vehicle, against his fellow Soldiers to the left and to the right, as well as back to a non-padded metal seat.  

5.  On 20 July 2006, he complained of chronic neck and pack pain.  His primary care manager referred him to an MEB.  He underwent a thorough medical examination.  His narrative summary shows: 

	a.  On examination of the cervical spine, he had slight tenderness to palpation at the C6 and C7 levels with no spasm in the paravertebral musculature. Additionally, he had no step-offs or deviations, and there was no erythema, edema, or ecchymosis (bruise) noted.  ROM measurements of the cervical and thoracolumbar spine taken by the physical therapist with a goniometer and recorded degrees are as follows:

		(1)  Thoracolumbar flexion 22, 24, and 22 degrees to pain; extension 10, 12, and 12 degrees to pain; right side bend 15, 12, and 14 degrees to pain; left side bend 10, 10, and 12 degrees to pain; right rotation 30, 28, and 30 degrees to pain; and left rotation 24, 24, and 26 degrees to pain.  

		(2)  Cervical flexion 25, 24, and 25, degrees to pain; extension 15, 15, and 15 degrees to pain; right side bend 12, 15, and 10 degrees to pain; left side bend 14,15,and 15 degrees to pain; right rotation 62, 65, and 65 degrees to pain; and left rotation 52, 56, and 55 degrees to pain.  

	b.  Imaging studies: There is a 2 January 2006 lumbar spine series that shows mild multilevel degenerative changes with anterior osteophytes, endplate sclerosis and degenerative disk disease of L5-S1.  There is a less than grade 1 spondylolisthesis at L5-S1, and sclerosis of the facet joints, primarily at L5-S1. There is a 2 June 2006 chest x-ray series that shows no radiographic evidence of acute cardiopulmonary disease.  There is a 2 June 2006 bilateral weight-bearing knee series that shows bilateral pes planus.  There is a 2 June 2006 bilateral weight-bearing knee series that shows mild bilateral tri-compartmental osteoarthritis with posterior patellar spurring, spiking of the tibial spines, and right medial compartment narrowing.  There is a 26 April 2006 ultrasound of the abdominal wall that shows no evidence of right inguinal hernia, although limited due to shadowing from overlying mesh.  There is a 26 April 2006 magnetic resonance imaging (MRl) of the brain without contrast that, when compared to a partial study of high detail imaging of the internal auditory canals performed in March 2006, the current exam shows normal ventricles and cortical sulci with no leukomalacic changes. 

	c.  There is a 21 March 2006 cervical spine series that shows cervical spondylosis with degenerative changes at C5-C6 with narrowing of the disk space.  There is narrowing of the neural foramina at C4-C5 and C5-C6 on the left side.  On the right side, the neural foramina are relatively patent.  There is a 21 March 2006 bilateral elbow series that shows mild deformities bilaterally suggesting remote well-healed trauma.  There is a 21 March 2006 bilateral wrist series that is a normal study.  There is a 7 February 2005 bilateral hand series that is a normal study.

	d.  There is a 30 March 2006 MRl of the cervical spine without contrast that shows a minimal annular bulge at the C2-C3 level without herniation or stenosis. At the C3-C4 level, there is mild posterior disk osteophyte complex with impression on the thecal sac and the cord without frank herniation or stenosis.  At the C4-C5 level, there is a small central herniation with annular tear, measuring 4.1 x 8.0 mm at the base with slight impression on the anterior cord. At the C5-C6 level, it shows disk osteophyte complex with left neuroforaminal narrowing and mild central annular bulge noted without frank herniation or stenosis.  The disk process measures 2.6 mm.

	e.  On 30 March 2006, there is an MRI of the lumbar spine without contrast that shows degenerative changes from 13 to 81 and some endplate increased signal strength at L4-L5 with some central anterior increased signal in the disk space itself, compatible with progressive degenerative changes as well as some degenerative changes in the adjacent vertebral endplates.  There are some degenerative changes about the anterior articular facets as well.  At L3-L4, there is noted to be a broad-based bulge at this level with increased signal in the inferior posterior disk margin.  At L4-L5, there is suggestion of mild neuroforaminal narrowing at this level with a broad-based disk bulge.  At L5-S1, there appears to be moderate neuroforaminal narrowing on the right with a broad-based disk bulge which is asymmetric, lateralizing to the right side, and contributing to the neuroforaminal narrowing here.  This may protrude into the neural foramen enough so that it is touching the nerve root on the right side laterally.  

6.  The narrative summary further shows with regard to consultations: 

	a.  On 17 March 2006, he was seen by occupational therapy for arthralgia.  Of note, on 3 August 2006 he sought a second opinion for his bilateral hand numbness, with the findings of borderline right carpal tunnel syndrome, mild left carpal tunnel syndrome, and moderately severe right and left cubital tunnel syndrome.

	b.  On 20 March 2006, he was seen by neurology for bilateral lower extremity electro-diagnostic studies that were normal. 

	c.  On 21 March 2006, he was seen by orthopedics for recurring bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome. 

	d.  On 22 March 2006, he was seen by the ear, nose, and throat clinic for sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus of the left ear that meet Army retention standards.

	e.  On 7 April 2006, he was seen by physical medicine and rehabilitation for bilateral cubital and carpal tunnel syndrome and electro-diagnostic studies that show a normal median motor nerve conduction study on the left with evidence of mild dispersion of the compound motor action potential.  He has a normal right median motor nerve conduction study with a very small compound-motor action potential and evidence of very slight dispersion of the compound motor action potential, consistent with a carpal tunnel syndrome.  Delay in the right ulnar motor nerve conduction velocity across the elbow would be consistent with a cubital tunnel syndrome.  There is a delay in the left ulnar motor nerve conduction velocity in the vicinity of the elbow.  It is noted that the nerve conduction velocities appear to be worse now than compared with the prior studies performed in February 2005.  There is a normal limited EMG examination of the left upper extremity. 

	f.   On 27 April 2006, he was seen by neurology for common migraine headaches without aura, insomnia, and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder that meet Army retention standards.  

	g.  On 3 May 2006, he was seen by general surgery for follow-up of inguinal pain.

	h.  On 8 May 2006, he was seen by neurosurgery for lumbar spine degenerative disk disease and cervical spine degenerative disk disease at C5-C6 that fail Army retention standards. 

	i.  On 30 May 2006, he was seen by audiology for sensorineural hearing loss of combined type and for fitting of hearing aids, that meets Army retention standards.  

	j.  On 2 June 2006, he was seen by physical therapy for cervical spine and thoracolumbar spine ROM measurements. 

	k.  On 12 June 2006, he was seen by the hand clinic/orthopedics for bilateral carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome that meets Army retention standards. 

	l.  On 14 June 2006, he was seen by urology service for urinary frequency and decreased stream caliber, suggestive of benign prostatic hypertrophy that was treated with uroxatral and meets Army retention standards.

	m.  On 21 June 2006, he was seen by podiatry service for mild pes planus and plantar fasciitis that meet Army retention standards.

	n.  On 26 June 2006, the applicant was seen by psychiatry service for Axis 1: 300 Anxiety Disorder that meets Army retention standards. 

7.  The narrative summary noted his poor prognosis as his condition has deteriorated over the past 2 years, and he is significantly limited in his ability just to function in daily life.  The degenerative changes about his lumbar and cervical spine are likely to continue to worsen.  He will, however, benefit from adhering to the guidelines as outlined in the accompanying DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile). He was non-deployable due to the inability to wear a Kevlar helmet, inability to wear body armor, inability to ride in tactical vehicles, and the stated rifle restrictions.  His compliance was excellent.  But, the conclusion was that he failed retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).  He was recommended for referral to the PEB for further adjudication, along with the DA Form 3349 physical profile duty limitations.

8.  On 27 July 2006, an MEB convened and, after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found the applicant was diagnosed as follows:


Diagnosis
Met Retention Standards
Did Not Meet Retention Standards
1.  Degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine 

X
2.  Degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine 

X
3.  Bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome
X

4.  Bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome
X

5.  Mild pes planus
X

6.  Plantar fasciitis
X

7.  Common migraine headaches
X

8.  Sensorineural hearing loss
X

9.  Left ear tinnitus
X

10.  Anxiety Disorder
X

11.  Lower urinary tract symptoms
X

12.  Hypertension
X

9.  The MEB recommended the applicant's referral to a PEB.  He was counseled and disagreed with the MEB's findings and recommendation.  He submitted a response to the MEB in relation to his carpal tunnel syndrome and his appeal was forwarded to the PEB. 

10.  On 11 June 2007, an informal PEB convened and found the applicant's condition(s) prevented him from performing the duties required of his grade and military specialty and determined the applicant was physically unfit as indicated below.  The PEB rated the applicant's medically-unacceptable conditions under the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) as follows:

VASRD Code
Condition 
Percentage
5237
Chronic low back pain secondary to degenerative disc disease 
10%
5237
Chronic neck pain secondary to degenerative disc disease 
10%
	a.  The PEB stated the chronic low back pain secondary to degenerative disc disease began in 2004 in Iraq.  Exam showed slight tenderness to palpation with no spasm.  Motion is limited by pain.  Imaging showed mild multilevel degenerative changes with anterior osteophytes, endplate sclerosis, and degenerative disc disease of L5-S1, rated for tenderness.  

	b.  The PEB also stated his chronic neck pain secondary to degenerative disc disease began in 2004 in Iraq.  Imaging shows minimal annular bulge at the C2-C3 level without herniation or stenosis.  Exam shows a slight tenderness to palpation at the C5, C6, and C7 levels with no spasms, rated for tenderness.  

	c.  The PEB also considered the applicant's other conditions, but they were not ratable since those conditions did not fail retention standards and/or were not unfitting.  The PEB recommended a 20% combined disability rating and the applicant's separation with entitlement to severance pay, if otherwise qualified.  

	d.  Subsequent to counseling and explanation of his rights, the applicant did not concur and demanded a formal hearing of his case with personal appearance.  

11.  On 11 December 2006, a formal PEB convened with the applicant present.  The formal PEB was continued to obtain additional information which was provided and incorporated in the findings.  On 26 December 2006, the formal PEB found the applicant's conditions prevented him from performing the duties required of his grade and military specialty and determined he was physically unfit as indicated below.  The PEB rated the applicant's medically-unacceptable conditions under the VASRD as follows:

VASRD Code
Condition 
Percentage
5237
Chronic low back pain secondary to degenerative disc disease 
10%
5237
Chronic neck pain secondary to degenerative disc disease 
10%
	a.  The PEB again stated the chronic low back pain secondary to degenerative disc disease began in 2004 in Iraq.  Exam show slight tenderness to palpation with no spasm.  Motion is limited by pain.  Imaging showed mild multilevel degenerative changes with anterior osteophytes, endplate sclerosis, and degenerative disc disease of L5-S1, rated for tenderness.  

	b.  The PEB also again stated his chronic neck pain secondary to degenerative disease began in 2004 in Iraq.  Imaging shows minimal annular bulge at the C2-C3 level without herniation or stenosis.  Exam shows a slight tenderness to palpation at the C5, C6, and C7 levels with no spasms, rated for tenderness.  

	c.  The PEB also considered the applicant's other conditions, but they were not ratable since those conditions did not fail retention standards and/or were not unfitting.  The PEB recommended a 20% combined disability rating and the applicant's separation with entitlement to severance pay, if otherwise qualified.  

	d.  Subsequent to counseling, the applicant concurred.  

12.  On 5 January 2007, the applicant rendered a statement wherein he requested termination of his disability processing and he elected to be transferred to the Retired Reserve with receipt of retired pay at age 60.  He acknowledged that if his request for transfer is approved, he waived his right to disability separation.  However, if his request is disapproved, he reserved the right to continue with the disability processing or accepting the decision of the Physical Disability Board.  He also rendered a statement wherein he stated:

After careful consideration, I elect to be transferred to the Retired Reserve pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), section 1209 with entitlement to retirement benefits upon reaching age 60. 

13.  On 12 January 2007, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command approved his request to be released from active duty and transferred to the Retired Reserve in lieu of disability severance pay. 

14.  On 29 January 2007, Headquarters, Fort Lewis, WA, published Orders 029-0025 releasing him from active duty and transferring him to the Retired Reserve. Accordingly, he was honorably released from active duty on 4 February 2007 and he was transferred to the Retired Reserve.  He will turn 60 years of age in May 2019.

15.  An advisory opinion was received from the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) on 28 February 2014 in the processing of this case.  An advisory official recommended the applicant's PEB be revised as indicated below per the guidance of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2008 and permanent disability retirement at the rate of 50%. 

	a.  The PEB rated cervical and lumbar ROM limitations at 10% each due to pain limiting ROM.  Lumbar ROM averaged 24 degrees flexion and cervical averaged 25 degrees.  Soldier's lumbar condition should have been rated at 40% based on VASRD criteria of ROM of less than 30 degrees equals a 40% rating.  Soldier's cervical condition should have been rated at 20% based on VASRD criteria of ROM between 15 and 30 degrees equals 20%.  

	b.  A rating of 40% plus 20% equals 52% which is rounded down to 50%.  Soldier should have been permanently retired at a disability rating of 50% at that time.

16.  The applicant and/or his counsel were provided with a copy of this advisory opinion but neither responded within the allotted time. 

17.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  It states there is no legal requirement in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity to rate a physical condition which is not in itself considered disqualifying for military service when a Soldier is found unfit because of another condition that is disqualifying.  Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability.

18.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement.  Once a determination of physical unfitness is made the PEB uses the VASRD to rate unfitting disabilities.  Ratings can range from zero to 100%, rising in increments of 10%.

19.  Title 10, USC, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating at least 30%. Title 10, USC, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating at less than 30%.

20.  The VASRD is the standard under which percentage rating decisions are to be made for disabled military personnel.  The VASRD is primarily used as a guide for evaluating disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service.  The VASRD is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims.  It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service.  This degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthly compensation.  The VASRD code 5237 pertains to lumbosacral or cervical strain.  Ratings are as follows:

	a.  Forward flexion of the cervical spine 15 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire cervical spine - 30%.

	b.  Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or, forward flexion of the cervical spine greater than 15 degrees but not greater than 30 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the cervical spine not greater than 170 degrees; or, muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis - 20%.

	c.  Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; or, forward flexion of the cervical spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 40 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the cervical spine greater than 170 degrees but not greater than 335 degrees; or, muscle spasm, guarding, or localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; or, vertebral body fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of the height - 10%.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant was an activated Reservist when his degenerative disc disease worsened while deployed.  He was the victim of bumpy terrain while riding in a military vehicle and had persistent neck and low back pain that limited his range of motion. Although found to be unfit in 2007 due to limitations on lifting and movement, he continued his civilian job as a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service for another 4 years until retirement.  In 2007 the applicant refused severance pay for a 20% rating and elected to remain eligible for his 30 year reserve retirement at age 60.

2.  He sustained an injury that warranted his entrance into the PDES.  He underwent an MEB that recommended his referral to a PEB.  The PEB found his medical condition prevented him from reasonably performing the duties required of his grade and military specialty.  He was determined to be physically unfit for further military service.  The PEB recommended separation with entitlement to severance pay with a 20% disability rating.  The applicant was counseled and ultimately elected to retire at age 60 vice accepting severance pay.  Accordingly, he was transferred to the Retired Reserve.  

3.  His narrative summary identified the ROM measurements of the cervical and thoracolumbar spine taken by the physical therapist with a goniometer and recorded degrees as follows:

	a.  Thoracolumbar flexion 22, 24, and 22 degrees to pain; extension 10, 12, and 12 degrees to pain; right side bend 15, 12, and 14 degrees to pain; left side bend 10, 10, and 12 degrees to pain; right rotation 30, 28, and 30 degrees to pain; and left rotation 24, 24, and 26 degrees to pain.  

	b.  Cervical flexion 25, 24, and 25, degrees to pain; extension 15, 15, and 15 degrees to pain; right side bend 12, 15, and 10 degrees to pain; left side bend 14, 15, and 15 degrees to pain; right rotation 62, 65, and 65 degrees to pain; and left rotation 52, 56, and 55 degrees to pain.  

4.  At the time he was properly rated for pain that is secondary to the conditions listed on his PEB.  His ROM measurements – all related to pain – are consistent with a 10% rating for each condition (thoracolumbar spine and cervical spine).  His rating was assigned based on a finding that at the time of separation his movements of flexion, extension, bend, and rotations were all related to and impacted by the pain that he experienced.  According to the VASRD, such a finding warranted a 10% disability rating for each of his unfitting conditions.  A disability rating assigned by the Army is based on the level of disability at the time of the Soldier's separation and can only be accomplished through the PDES.  The applicant was properly rated at 20% combined rating and there is no evidence to support a higher rating for his condition.

5.  However, under the provisions of NDAA 2008, the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) was established to review PEB decisions and recommend changes in cases where, among other things, the Services measured and rated range of motion differently than what was prescribed by the VASRD.  This applied to discharges from 11 September 2001 to 31 December 2009.  As a matter of equity, it was determined that the ABCMR would adjudicate cases from the covered population by the same standards as those applied by the PDBR.

6.  In this case, it appears the ROM measurements were disregarded because they were limited by pain.  Under new standards as mandated by Congress (Services use the VASRD the same way the VA uses the VASRD), ROM limited by pain is recorded as such.  In other words, even if one can bend and touch the floor, if pain is experienced at 45 degrees and beyond, the ROM is stated to be 45 degrees.

7.  Upon further consideration by the USAPDA, it was determined that the PEB rated cervical and lumbar ROM limitations at 10% each due to pain limiting ROM. Lumbar ROM averaged 24 degrees flexion and cervical averaged 25 degrees.  The applicant’s lumbar condition should have been rated at 40% based on VASRD criteria of ROM of less than 30 degrees equals a 40% rating.  His cervical condition should have been rated at 20% based on VASRD criteria of ROM between 15 and 30 degrees equals 20%.  A rating of 40% plus 20% equals 52% which is rounded down to 50%.  It would be equitable at this time to show the applicant was permanently retired at a disability rating of 50%.

8.  A Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election must be made prior to the effective date of retirement or the SBP will, by law, default to automatic SBP spouse coverage (if married).  This correction of records may have an effect on the applicant’s SBP status/coverage.  The applicant is advised to contact his nearest Retirement Services Officer (RSO) for information and assistance immediately.  A listing of RSOs by country, state, and installation is available on the Internet at website http://www.armyg1.army.mil/RSO/rso.asp.  The RSO can also assist with any TRICARE questions the applicant may have.
BOARD VOTE:

___x____  ___x____  ___x____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

* voiding the applicant's 4 February 2007 discharge
* permanently retiring the applicant as a result of physical disability effective 4 February 2007 at the rate of 50%
* auditing the applicant's records and paying him any retired pay as a result of this correction retroactive to 4 February 2007



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20130008426



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1